THE  KARAITE  HALAKAH 

AND  ITS  RELATION  TO  SADDUCEAN,  SAMARITAN 
AND  PHILONIAN  HALAKAH 

PART  I 

By  Bernard  Revel,  M.  A.,  Ph.  D, 
A  THESIS  SUBMITTED  FEBRUARY  27,   1911 


IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  IN  THE  DROPSIE 

COLLEGE  FOR  HEBREW  AND  COGNATE  LEARNING 


PHILADELPHIA 
19  13 


\'i 


PRESS    OF 

CAHAN    PRINTING   CO,   INC. 

Philadelphia,   Pa  .  U.  S.  A, 

19  13 


INQUIRY    INTO    THE    SOURCES    OF    KARAITE 
HALAKAH 

The  causes  of  the  Karaite  schism  and  its  early  history 
are  veiled  in  obscurity,  as  indeed  are  all  the  movements 
that  originated  in  the  Jewish  world  during  the  time  be- 
tween the  conclusion  of  the  Talmud  Babli  and  the  appear- 
ance of  Saadia  Gaon. 

From  the  meager  contemporary  sources  it  would  seem 
that  from  the  second  third  of  the  eighth  century  until 
the  downfall  of  the  Gaonate  (1038)  the  whole  intellectual 
activity  of  Babylonian  Jewry  centered  about  the  two 
Academies  and  their  heads,  the  Geonim.  Of  the  early 
Gaonic  period  the  Jewish  literature  that  has  reached  us 
from  Babylonia  is  mainly  halakic  in  character,  e.  g. 
Halakot  Gedolot,  Shecltot,  and  works  on  liturgy,  which 
afford  us  an  insight  into  the  religious  life  of  the  people. 
From  them,  however,  we  glean  very  little  information 
about  the  inner  life  of  the  Jews  in  Babylonia  before  the 
rise  of  Karaism ;  hence  the  difficulty  of  fully  understanding 
the  causes  which  brought  about  the  rise  of  the  only  Jewish 
sect  that  has  had  a  long  existence  and  has  affected  the 
course  of  Jewish  history  by  the  opposition  it  has  aroused. 

The  study  of  sects  always  has  a  peculiar  interest. 
During  the  thirties  of  the  last  century,  the  Karaites  them- 
selves made  accessible  to  the  scholarly  world  the  works  of 


264304 


,  2  KARAITE    HALAKAH — REVKI, 

some  of  their  latter-day  authorities,  and  with  the  publica- 
tion of  Simhah  Pinsker's  epoch-making  work  "Likkute 
Kadmoniyyot"  (i860)  the  attention  of  Jewish  scholarship 
was  turned  to  Karaism  and  its  literature.  Pinsker, 
blinded  by  his  discovery  of  an  important  phase  in  the  de- 
velopment of  Judaism,  invented  a  pan-Karaite  theory,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  Karaites  are  to  be  looked  upon  as 
the  source  of  all  intellectual  achievement  of  mediaeval 
Judaism  (Likkute,  I,  4,  32).  The  Masorah  is  a  product 
mainly  of  theirs,  and  it  is  among  them  that  we  are  to  look 
for  the  beginnings  of  Hebrew  grammar,  lexicography, 
poetry,  and  sound  biblical  exegesis.  The  Rabbanites,  since 
Saadia  Gaon,  were  merely  imitators  of  the  Karaites.  Pins- 
ker believed  that  every  Jewish  scholar,  prior  to  the  eleventh 
century,  who  busied  himself  with  the  study  of  Bible  alone, 
was  a  Karaite,  and  he  transformed,  accordingly,  more 
than  one  Rabbanite  into  a  Karaite. 

The  question  of  the  origin  of  Karaism,  its  causes  and 
early  development  is  still  awaiting  solution.  That  Karaism 
is  not  the  result  of  Anan's  desire  to  revenge  himself  on 
Babylonian  official  Jewry,  need  not  be  said.  Karaite  liter- 
ature affords  us  no  data ;  there  is  a  marked  lack  of  histori- 
cal sense  among  them.  They  have  no  tradition  as  to  their 
origin,  and  their  opinions  are  conflicting  (comp.  Pinsker, 
Likkute,  II,  98).  The  belief  that  Karaism  is  but  an  echo 
of  a  a  similar  movement  during  this  period  in  the  Islamic 
world  is  now  generally  given  up  owing  to  the  advance 
made  in  the  knowledge  of  the  inner  development  of  Islam 
and,  particularly,  the  nature  of  the  Shiite  heterodoxy 
(see  I.  Friedlaender,  JQR.,  T910,  185  ff.). 

This  question  is  bound  up  with  the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  the  Karaite  halakah  which  is  of  vital  importance 


KARAITE    II  M.  \KAII  —  KKVKJ.  3 

for  the  understanding  the  history  of  Tradition;  as  Geiger 
(ZDMG.,  XVI  (1862),  716)  says,  it  was  always  the  dif- 
ferences in  practice,  not  in  dogma,  that  caused  and  sus- 
tained divisions  in  Israel.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the 
Karaites  who  differ  in  nothing  but  religious  practices  from 
the  rest  of  Israel. 

The  solution  offered  by  Geiger  that  the  Karaites  are 
the  descendants  of  the  Sadducees  and  their  halakah  Sad- 
ducean,  is  accepted  with  some  modification  by  many 
scholars  (comp.  Poznanski,  REJ.,  XLIV  (1902),  169). 
On  the  other  hand,  the  eclectic  nature  of  the  Karaite 
halakah  was  recognized  by  several  scholars  (comp.  S.  L. 
Rapoport  in  Kcrcm  Chcmcd,  V  (1841),  204  ft'.,  and  in 
Kaempf's  Nichtandalusische  Poesie,  II,  240;  P.  Frankl, 
Brsch  it.  Gruber,  sec.  II,  vol.  33,  12;  Harkavy,  in  Gratz'  Ge- 
schichte,  V.4,  482  ff . ;  id.,  Jahrbuch  f.  jiid.  Geschichte  it.  Lit- 
ciatur,  II  (1899),  116  ft'.,  and  elsewhere).  No  attempt  was, 
however,  made  to  explain  the  bulk  of  the  Karaitic  halakah, 
on  these  lines.  I  have  therefore  undertaken  the  work  of 
tracing  the  individual  Karaite  laws  to  their  respective 
sources,  which  will,  at  the  same  time,  be  the  first  exposition 
of  the  Karaite  laws  in  general — prefacing  it  by  an  examin- 
ation of  the  Sadducean-Karaitic  theory.  The  term  "Kar- 
aite halakah"  is  used  here  as  a  convenient  one,  though,  as 
Kirkisani  has  unwillingly  shown — and  any  Karaite  code 
testifies  to  it — the  laws  on  which  all  Karaites  agree  are 
few.  The  Karaite  laws  are  discussed  here  not  according 
to  subject  matter,  but  such  as  have  common  source  are 
grouped  together.  I  begin  with  Philo,  as  the  relation  of 
Karaite  halakah  to  that  of  Philo  has  remained,  to  my 
knowledge,  hitherto  unnoticed.  This  relation,  if  estab- 
lished,  may  prove   helpful   in   the  understanding  of   other 


4  KARAITE   HALAKAH REVEL 

points  in  the  inner  history  of  Judaism  during  the  first 
centuries  of  Islam. 

For  the  halakah  of  Philo,  I  have  used  the  work  of 
Dr.  B.  Ritter,  "Philo  und  die  Halacha,  eine  vergleichende 
Studio,"  from  which  most  of  the  citations  from  Philo  in 
this  treatise  are  taken.  Other  Philonian  laws,  not  treated 
by  Ritter,  are  discussed  here,  but  only  as  they  bear  on  the 
Karaite  halakah. 

Not  all  the  early  Karaites  claimed  antiquity  for  their 
schism.  This  is  evident  from  the  reply  of  Salman  b. 
Yeruham  to  Saadia's  mention  of  their  late  origin  (Pins- 
ker,  II,  19). *  Another  contemporary  of  Saadia,  Abu  Jusuf 
Yakub  al-Kirkisani,  the  most  reliable  historian  among  the 
Karaites,  gives  a  date  for  what  he  calls  the  Rabbanite 
dissension :  Jeroboam,  to  make  permanent  the  power  he  had 
usurped  and  to  prevent  the  Israelites  owing  allegiance  to 
the  house  of  David,  divided  the  nation  by  sowing  the  seed 
of  dissension,  perverted  the  Law,  and  changed  the  calendar 
(I  Kings  12,  32).  The  followers  of  Jeroboam  in  later  times 
are  called  Rabbanites.  Those  who  remained  faithful  to 
the  original  laws  were  the  ancestors  of  the  Karaites.2  This 
fanciful  explanation  found  no  credence  even  among  the 
Karaites.8 

1  niayinn  »^pa  n»    .  n'cnp  dh  dwti  •mail  D'cnn  xipa  »f?jD  -poxa 
□'trie:  py  pa  onSni  ;nm  nid'd  o'tsnipo  rh»y\  n^xn;  comp.  also  Salman 

b.  Yeruham's  commentary  on  Ps.  96,  1  (Winter  u.  Wunsche,  Jiidische 
Literatur,  II,  80).  See,  however,  Harkavy  in  Gratz,  Geschichte,  V4,  472. 
That  not  all  the  Karaite  contemporaries  of  Saadia  claimed  antiquity  for  their 
sect  is  evident  also  from  Saadia's  fourth  answer  in  his  polemical  work  against 
Ibn   Sakaweihi.      See  JQR.,   XIII,   664;  Dipn,   I,   67. 

2  Comp.    Poznanski,   REJ.,    XLIV    (1902),    162    ff. 

'  It   was,   however,    taken    up   again   by   the   twelfth   century   Karaite,    Elias 
b.      Abraham,      in      his     D'Kipm     D'33in      'piSn     (Pinsker,    II,    100    ff.).      He 


KARAITE   HALAKAII REVEL  5 

The  Karaites  felt  keenly  the  need  of  some  account 
of  their  origin  that  would  silence  the  reproach  of  the  Rab- 
banites  and  found  in  the  event  recorded  in  the  Baraita 
(Kiddushin  66a;  see  Josephus  Ant.,  XIII,  13,  5)  a  basis  for 
claim  of  ancient  origin  for  their  sect.  As  stated  in  that 
narrative,  the  disagreement  between  John  Hyrcanus  and 
the  teachers  of  the  Law  resulted  in  the  extermination  of 
the  latter,  excepting  Simeon  b.  Shatah.  As  a  consequence, 
ignorance  of  the  Law  prevailed  until  Simeon  appeared  and 
reinstated  it . 

n:crv^  minn  nx  -vrnm  nctr  12  py»B>  satr  iv  dowc'd  ohyn  rrm 
Simeon,  say  the  Karaites,  being  at  that  time  the  sole  author- 
ity, introduced  many  innovations  upon  his  return  and 
changed  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Law.  To  enforce 
these  new  laws,  he  invented  the  fiction  that  besides  the 
Written  there  is  also  an  Oral  Law  given  to  Moses  on  Sinai 
and  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation,  and  that 
the  laws  proclaimed  by  him  went  back  to  this  real  tradition. 

The  people  followed  him  blindly.  But  some  of  them, 
knowing  the  false  basis  of  these  changes,  rejected  them  and 
adhered  to  the  ancient  Tradition  in  all  its  purity;  those 
were  the  Karaites.4 

adds  that  those  who  remained  faithful  to  the  original  faith  migrated  "OJH3 
C12  'IHiS  and  only  few  of  them,  because  of  their  attachment  to  the 
Temple,  remained  in  Jerusalem.  Yet,  as  Pinsker  (II,  9$)  remarks,  Elias 
himself  put  little  confidence  in  this  myth.  For  the  origin  of  this  legend, 
see  A.  Epstein  Eldad  ha-dani  (Pressburg  1891),  p.  l.  For  later  Karaites 
repeating  this  story,  see  Poznanski,  /.  c,  p.  163;  comp.  ZfhB.,  Ill,  92  (end) 
and  93,  for  the  view  of  a  tenth  century  Karaite  (comp.  ib.,  90  and  172  ff.). 
4  As  a  striking  instance  of  the  purely  mythological  character  of  the 
Karaite  beliefs  about  their  origin  and  past,  I  shall  illustrate  the  three  strata 
in  the  development  of  the  last  mentioned  Karaite  theory  of  their  origin. 
Sahl  b.  Masliah  (tenth  century)  asserts  that  Karaism  goes  back  to  the 
time  of  the  second  Temple,  but  connects  it  with  no  specific  event  (Pinsker, 
II,  35).      This    is    still    the    opinion    of    Aaron    b.    Elias    (fourteenth    century) 


6  KARAITE    IIAI.AKAII — RKVI'.L 

On  the  other  hand,  most  of  the  Mediaeval  Jewish 
scholars  seem  to  agree  that  Karaism  was  clue  to  a  revival 
of  the  Sadducees  (Abraham  Ibn  Daud)  or  that  Sadducean 
elements  are  prominent  in  it  (Saadia,  Judah  Halevi). 
Saadia  Gaon  (891-942)  was  the  first  to  meet  the  Karaites  in 
open  battle5  and  refute  their  claims  for  recognition.  He 
states  that  Karaism  is  of  recent  origin  (Pinsker,  II,  19)  and 
that   Anan's   breaking  with  Tradition  was   due  entirely  to 

in  Introduction  to  his  flliri  ins,  40.  Elias  b.  Moses  Bashyazi  a  century 
later   connects  the  schism   with   the   name  of   Simeon  b.    Shatah    and     exclaims: 

tn»  2?b  isSs  wn  unnatr  D'orjnn    inb>-j   nna    ntst*   p   ppew    rvntr    ix 

(intr.  to  in»7N  miX,  C.oslow  1834,  3a.).  He  is  followed  by  his  disciple 
Kaleb  Afendopolo  in  his  "11*10X0  mti'J?  (quoted  in  »3TlO  *n*|,  Wien  1830, 
9a).  The  sixteenth  century  Karaite  prodigy  Moses  b.  Elias  Bashyazi  (born 
1554  and  said  to  have  died  1572)  amplified  this  tale  by  asserting  in  his 
D'nSxn  ntsa  (quoted  in  <  3*1*10  111,  o&  ff.)  that  Judah  b.  Tabbai,  who 
had  also  survived  the  king's  wrath,  opposed  the  innovations  introduced  by 
Simeon  b.  Shatah  as  also  his  fiction  of  an  oral  law.  Judah  attracted  to  his 
banner  all  those  who  remained  faithful  to  ancient  traditions.  Simeon  and 
Judah  each  became  the  head  of  a  school,  thus  dividing  the  Jews  into  two 
factions.  Simeon  was  succeeded  by  Abtalion,  Abtalion  by  Hillel  who  sys- 
tematized the  new  laws  based  on  the  fiction  of  the  Oral  Law.  Judah  b.  Tabbai 
was  followed  by  Shemaiah,  and  Shemaiah  by  Shammai;  those  two  being  the 
great  Karaite  teachers  from  whom  the  line  of  succession  was  never  interrupted. 
Already  Jepheth  b.  Said  asserted  that  Shammai  was  the  teacher  of  the 
Karaites  (Pinsker,  II,  186;  comp.  ib.,  I,  6);  see  also  Luzzatto,  "10*1  C~0, 
III  (1838),  223;  Geiger,  ib.,  IV,  12;  Gottlober,  D'NIpPI  nithnS  mp*J, 
Wilna  1865,  5  ff.  How  foreign  this  idea  was  to  the  early  Karaites,  is  seen 
from   what   Salman  b.   Ycruham  says  of  Bet   Shammai  and  Bet  Hillel   ("01*1     C13 

iv.   [3):    Dn»3»  n.t  yn  mj?in, 

6  We  know  of  two  Rabbanites  who  combated  Karaism  before  Saadia:  the 
Gaon  Natronai  b.  Hilai  ( DIOJ?  3*1  YlD,  38a)  and  the  Gaon  Hai  b.  David 
(Harkavy,  Studien  u.  Mittheilungen,  X,  10S,  n.  2;  comp.  Bornstein,  1ED 
nN^MpKB  Cir;^  bai»n,  Warsaw  1904,  158,  n.  2,  who  believes  this  Gaon 
to  have  been  Hai  b.  Nahshon).  For  anti-Karaite  legislation  by  Jehudai 
Gaon  see  L*  Ginzberg,  Geonica,  I,  111,  n.  2.  For  Saadia's  anti-Karaite 
writings,   see   Poznaiiski,  JQR.,   X,   238  ff.,  and  additions,  ib.,   XX,  232   ff. 


KARAITE   HALAKAH — K i;\  I . I .  J 

personal  motives  (ib.,  103).0  Yet  he  adds  that  the  remnants 
of  Zadok  and  Boethus  joined  Anan  (/.  c).  About  two 
centuries  later,  a  time  which  was  decisive  in  the  battle  be- 
tween traditional  Judaism  and  the  Karaites,7  the  three 
great  lights  of  Toledo.  Judah  Halevi,  Abraham  Ibn  Ezra, 
and  Abraham  Ibn  Daud,  each  strove  to  check  the  Karaite 
propaganda  in  Spain8  carried  on  at  that  time  with  great  zeal 
by  Ibn  al-Taras,  the  disciple  of  Jeshua  b.  Judah.  and  they 
all  assert  that  Karaism  is  an  offshoot  of  Sadduceeism. 
Judah  Halevi  declares  that  the  Karaite  schism  arose  in  the 
time  of  John  Hyrcanus.  The  Karaites,  says  he,  arc- 
superior  to  the  Sadducees  in  questions  of  dogma,  but  agree 
with  them  in  important  religious  questions.9  Abraham  Ibn 
Ezra  also  identifies  them  with  the  Sadducees.  In  his  com- 
mentaries on  the  Bible,  which  are  strongly  anti-Karaitic, 
he  usually  styles  them10  C'pHV  .  More  emphatic  is  Ab- 
raham Ibn  Daud  in  his  Sefer  Hakkabalah,  where  he  says 
that  "after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  the  Sadducees 
dwindled  to  almost  nothing  until  Anan  appeared  and 
strengthened  them.""     Likewise,   Maimonides,  commenting 

6  That  Saadia  is  meant  by  tpn  ~\'£X  D3m  |3^1,  see  Pinsker,  p.  98; 
comp.    Poznariski,    JQR.,    X,    242. 

7  Comp.    Frankl,    MGWJ.,    XXI    (1882),    3    ff. 

8  Spain  was  from  early  Gaonic  times  infected  with  Karaism;  comp. 
Ginzberg,  /.  c,  I,  123,  note  1;  Frankl.  MGWJ.,  1888,  6  ff.;  and  Poznaiiski, 
JQR.,  XVI,  7689.  Against  the  view  of  Hirschfeld  (JQR.,  XIII,  225  ff.) 
that  some  relation  existed  between  the  Karaites  and  the  Zahirites  in  Spain, 
see   Goldziher,   REJ.,   XLIII    (1901),   6-7. 

9  Kuzari,  III,  65.  Judah  Halevi's  view  is  shared  by  Abrabanel, 
Tins   nSna,    and    S.    Duran,    ni3K  JJO  on   Abot    1,   3,   and   II,   21a;   31a. 

111  Introduction  to  his  Commentaries  on  the  Bible:  Lev.  3,  9;  2^,  17,  40. 
As  to  the  relation  of  Ibn  Ezra  to  the  Karaites,  see  J.  S.  Reggio,  "|"B"  flll^N, 
I    (Wien    1S34),   42    ff. ;    see   also   D.    Rosin,   MGWJ.,   XLIII,   76-7. 

:l  Neubauer,  Mediaeval  Jewish  Chronicles.  I.  64.  The  variant  D*3'Q 
does    not    affect    the    meaning    of    the    statement. 


8  KARAITE  HALAKAH — REVEL 

(Abot  i,  3)  on  the  dissension  of  Zadok  and  Boethus,  adds: 
"In  Egypt  they  are  called  Karaites,  while  in  the  Talmud 
they  are  named  Sadducees  and  Boethusians."12 

Elias  b.  Moses  Bashyazi,  a  fifteenth  century  Karaite, 
tells  us,  in  the  introduction  to  his  liT^S  mix  ,  3a,  that  it 
is  the  opinion  of  all  the  Rabbanite  scholars  that  the 
Karaite  schism  goes  back  to  Zadok  and  Boethus. 

Much  confidence,  however,  was  not  placed  in  this 
testimony  of  the  Mediaeval  Rabbanites,  that  the  Karaites 
descended  from  the  Sadducees,  as  it  is  evident  that  the 
Rabbanites  were  often  actuated  by  the  desire  to  stamp 
their  opponents  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  as  descendants 
of  that  hated  sect  which  denied  divine  Providence  and  re- 
surrection.13    In  the  middle  of  the    last    century    Abraham 

12  See  his  commentary  on  IJullin  I,  3.  On  the  views  of  Maim,  on 
the  Karaites,  see  IkSd  HCO1?  ^SVn  *1ED  (Budapest  1905),  Hungarian 
part,  164-170;  see  also  the  other  authors  mentioned  by  Poznanski,  REJ.,  ib., 
170,  to  which  may  be  added  Estori  ha-Pharhi  !"HE1  iriB3,  end  of  ch.  5 
(ed.  Luncz,  p.  61);  David  Abi  Zimra,  Responsa,  IV,  resp.  219;  Meiri  on 
Abot  1,  3.     See  also  Responsum  No.  34  in  the  Gaonic  collection  nsiBTI    y1*V: 

Din":  '-noSn    D'awnri  jo  a'm. 

13  Comp.  David  Messer  Eeon  (published  by  Schechter),  REJ.,  XXIV, 
126.  See  Weiss,  VKHHl  1H  11*1,  IV,  53.  Joseph  al-Basir  is  the  only 
one  among  the  Karaites  who  identifies  the  Karaites  with  the  Sadducees 
(Harkavy,  /.  c,  p.  473^-  Kirkisani  states  that  the  Sadducees  revealed  part 
of  the  truth  and  that  there  were  no  Sadducees  in  his  days  (ch.  18,  p.  317). 
Jepheth  b.  Ali  (Poz.,  ib.,  171-2)  and  Hadassi  (Alphabeta  97,  98)  speaks  of  the 
Sadducees  with  contempt.  The  statement  by  Jacob  b.  Reuben  (Pinsker,  II, 
84)  that  the  Karaites  are  the  descendants  of  the  Sadducees  was,  therefore, 
taken  by  him  from  Joseph  al  Basir's  INi'DriDN^N  2SH2  and  not  from  Jepheth 
b.  Ali,  as  Harkavy  (Gratz,  Geschichte,  V4,  474)  suggests.  Nor  is  Harkavy 
(/.  c.)  right  in  his  assertion  that  Elias  b.  Abraham  shared  this  view.  See 
above  note  3.  Comp.  also  Pinsker,  I,  11 -12.  The  later  Karaites  claimed  that 
the  imputation  that  they  were  in  some  way  related  to  the  Sadducees  was  due 
to  the  hatred  the  Rabbanites  bore    them.      See    Kaleb    Afendopolo,    quoted    in 

3T1Q    "111.  2b. 


KARAITE  IIALAKAII — REVEL  9 

Geiger  attempted  to  prove  historically  the  descent  of  the 
Karaites  from  the  Sadducees,"  and  this  view  constitutes  an 
essential  part  of  his  epoch-making  theory  concerning  the 
internal  development  of  post-exilic  Judaism  and  the  history 
of  Jewish  sects.  His  view  is  accepted  by  Holdheim." 
Fiirst,16  Harkavy,"  Chwolson,18  and  others.  A  general  sur- 
vey of  Geiger's  theory18  will  help  us  better  to  understand 
the  questions  involved. 

From  the  earliest  times,  says  Geiger,  two  distinct,  or, 
rather,  antagonistic  currents  were  at  work  shaping  the  his- 
tory of  Judaism.  The  dualism  revealed  itself  in  olden 
times  in  the  divided  nationality  of  Ephraim  (or  Joseph ) 
and  Judah.  Ephraim  constituted  a  worldly  kingdom,  in 
constant  contact  with  the  neighboring  nations  and,  there- 
fore, in  need  of  a  sacrificial  and  ceremonial  religion  and  a 
powerful  priesthood  to  protect  it  from  the  surrounding 
heathen  influences.  Judah,  on  the  other  hand,  constituted 
a  kingdom  politically  insignificant,  compact  and  isolated, 
and  less  susceptible  to  foreign  influences,  with  one  national 
sanctuary  and  a  less  developed  priesthood.20  Judah  escaped 
the   fate  of  Ephraim  and  awoke  to  new  life  in  the  sixth 

14  Des  Judenthum  u.  s.  Geschichte,  II,  55  ff. ;  Jiid.  Zeitchrift,  VIII, 
227-233;  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  II,  135  ff.;  Urschrift,  index,  j.  v.  "Karai- 
ten'';   and   elsewhere. 

15  mtP'Sn    10K0.    Wien    1861,    128    ff. 

16  Geschichte   d.   Karaerthums    (Leipzig    1862),   I,   8   ff. 

17  In    Russian    periodical    "Woschod,"     1896,     and     elsewhere;     comp.     id., 

Snics  niron  nmpS,  4,  19. 

18  Das  letzte  Passamahl  Cliristi  (2  ed.,  Leipzig  1908),  pp.  148,  176  ff.: 
id.,  Bcitrage  sur  Entzvicklungsgeschichte  d.  Judenthums  (Leipzig  1910),  p. 
8  ff. ;  comp.  V.  Aptowitzer,  Die  Rcchtsbiicher  d.  nestorianischen  Patriarchen, 
1910,    pp.    7-8. 

19  For  a  more  detailed  account  see  Poznanski,  Abraham  Geiger,  Leben 
u.    Lebenswerk,    Berlin    191  o,   352-388. 

20  Jiid.   Zeitschr.,   VIII    (1870),   279   ff.,  and   elsewhere. 


IO  KARAITE    MALAKAII — KF.YI'.I. 

century  B.  C.  With  this  new  life  came  a  struggle,  in 
which  priestly  aristocracy  and  sacerdotal  rule  were  antag- 
onized by  tendencies  towards  religious  and  political  democ- 
racy that  asserted  themselves  more  and  more.  Since  the 
establishment  of  the  second  commonwealth  the  priests 
ruled  the  nation.  There  stood  at  the  head  of  the  state  a 
high-priest,  descendant  of  the  family  of  Zadok,  the  chief  of 
the  priesthood  in  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon  (I  Kings, 
i,  34;  2,  35  ;  I  Chron.  29,  22),  members  of  which  had  exer- 
cised priestly  functions  ever  since  the  building  of  Solo- 
mon's Temple.  This  family  and  those  related  to  it  con- 
stituted the  nobility  of  the  nation  and  since  the  Return 
controlled  the  secular  as  well  as  the  religious  life  of  the 
people. 

This  power,  blended  with  the  attribute  of  holiness, 
soon  led  the  priestly  ruling  class  to  disregard  the  needs  and 
demands  of  the  people.  They  stood  for  the  ancient  laws 
and  observances,  which  established  and  asserted  their 
rights  and  prerogatives,  admitting  no  modification  which 
the  times  required.  They  also  allied  themselves  with  the 
Syrians  and  cultivated  tastes  and  habits  distasteful  to  the 
people.21  With  the  victory  of  the  Maccabees  the  govern- 
ment and  the  high-priesthood  passed  over  to  the  latter,  the 
Sadducees,  the  old  nobility,  joining  them.  An  opposition 
against  them  arose  among  the  people,  the  leaders  of  which 
were  known  as  the  "Separated"  (Perushim),  descendants 
of  those  who  in  the  days  of  Zerubbabel'  and  again  in  the 

;i  lb.,  p.  282  ff.;  Jiid.  Zeitschr.,  II,  17  ff. :  ZDMG.,  XIX,  603  ff.  An  off- 
shoot of  the  Sadducees,  and  united  with  them  were  the  Boethusians,  a  new 
aristocratic  priestly  family  called  after  Simon  b.  Boethus,  high-priest  and 
father-in-law  of  Herod  I  (Urschrift.  102.  134  ff.,  143  ff-)-  Herzfeld, 
Geschichte,  II,  387,  accepts  the  view  of  Azariah  dei  Rossi  that  the  Boethu- 
sians are  the  Essenes  spoken  of  by  Philo  and  Josephus.  See  also  REJ.,  Ill, 
dson,    /  'at      ■         !  as  tan  a) 


KARAITE    HALAKAH — REVEL  II 

time  of  Ezra  separated  themselves  from  heathen  surround- 
ings and  influences  (Ezra  6,  21  ;  9,  1;  Neh.  9,  2).  Their 
aim  was  to  limit  the  power  of  priestly  aristocracy  and  turn 
the  government  over  to  the  people.  The  Pharisees  recog- 
nized the  sanctity  of  priesthood,  but  contested  the  central- 
ization of  secular  power  in  the  hands  of  the  sacerdotal- 
aristrocratic  families. 

The  .difference  between  these  two  parties,  originally 
small  and  of  a  general  nature,  widened  in  time.  The  spirit 
of  rivalry  in  this  politico-religious  struggle  brought  about 
laws  and  regulations  on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees  intended 
to  check  the  authority  and  diminish  the  privileges  of  the 
priests.  Personal  purity  and  sanctity  of  all  the  people  were 
to  take  the  place  of  the  sanctity  of  priesthood.  The  Phari- 
sees devised  new  rules  of  interpretation  which  enabled 
them  to  limit  and  restrict  the  biblical  laws  establishing 
priestly  rights.  On  the  other  hand,  many  laws  of  purity 
and  observances  concerning  food,  originally  intended  for 
the  priests  and  the  Temple,  they  made  apply  to  all  the 
people  in  and  outside  of  the  Temple."  So  the  Pharisees 
did  not  adhere  to  the  letter  of  the  Law.  but  taught  and  ex- 
panded the  Law  with  regard  to  its  inner  spirit  and  the 
needs  of  the  time,  whereby  they  created  a  new  Halakah 
differing  in  content  as  well  as  in  spirit  from  the  ancient. 
Sadducean,  tradition."3  The  majority  of  the  people  follow- 
ed the  new  Halakah,  but  the  Sadducean  teachings  found 
acceptance  outside  of  Judah  proper.  The  Samaritans,  de- 
scendants of  Northern  Israel,  were  not  allowed  by  the 
leaders  of  the  national  party  in  the  time  of  Zerubbabel  to 
participate   in  the   further  development  of  Judaism   (Ezra 

22  Jiid.    Zcitschr.,    VI,    265    ff. 

23  Urschrift,    156    ff.,    176,    434    ff.;    Nacligelassenc    Schriften,    II,    121    ff.; 
V    (Heb.),    112   ff.,    142   ff.   and   elsewhere. 


12  KARAITE  HALAKAH — REVEL 

4,  i  ff.).  The  ancient  feud  between  Ephraim  and  Judah 
thus  revived.  The  rejected  Samaritans  who  retained  the 
ancient  Israelitish  tradition  as  well  as  the  ancient  interpre- 
tation of  the  Law,  clung,  like  the  Sadducees,  to  those  tra- 
ditions and  stood  for  priestly  prerogative,  characteristic  of 
the  religion  of  Northern  Israel  and  the  Sadducees.  This 
accounts  for  the  many  practices  and  interpretations  of  the 
law  that  are  common  to  the  Sadducees  and  the  Samari- 
tans.24 

But,  even  in  Judah,  only  the  political  antagonism  be- 
tween the  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  ceased  with  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple.  The  Sadducees,  whose  exist- 
ence as  the  priestly  aristocracy  and  ruling  class  depended 
upon  the  state  and  the  Temple,  ceased  to  control  the  life 
of  the  people.  But  the  religious  differences  between  these 
two  parties  did  not  disappear. 

The  victorious  Pharisees,  who  ruled  the  day,  rejected 
all  traditions,  preserved  by  the  Sadducees,  which  tended  to 
affirm  the  exclusive  rights  of  the  priests,  and  the  whole 
body  of  traditional  law  was  now  made  to  conform  to  their 
views.  Not  all  the  Pharisaic  teachers,  however,  agreed  to 
these  radical  changes,  and  some  of  them  retained  their  al- 
legiance to  the  pre-Pharisaic  Halakah.  Notably  among 
them  are  Shammai  and  his  school  represented  by  R. 
Eliezer  b.  Hyrcanus  and  Jose  the  Galilean.25 

But  official  Pharisaism  did  not  heed  them.  It  estab- 
lished as  a  religious  norm  the  interpretations  and  laws 
which  emanated  from  the  school  of  Hillel,  the  great  cham- 

24  Nachg.    Schriften,    III,    258    ff.,    284    ff.;    IV,    65;    V    (Heb.),    149    ff.; 
ZDMC,  XII,   132   ff.  and  elsewhere. 

25  Jiid.     Zeitschrift,     VIII,     283     ff.     and     elsewhere;     comp.    Hoffmann, 
Magazin    1884,    19. 


KARAITE    HALAKAH — REVEL  13 

pion  of  Pharisaism,  who  began  the  systematization  of  the 
new  Halakah.  Hillel's  work  was  firmly  established  by  R. 
Akiba  and  brought  to  completion  by  Judah  Ha-nasi.  Two 
centuries  later  the  center  of  Judaism  was  transferred  to 
Babylonia,  and  soon  all  consciousness  of  an  earlier  and 
differing  Halakah  disappeared.26 

Zealously  as  the  Pharisees  of  the  school  of  Hillel 
worked  to  exclude  and  annul  the  laws  and  traditions  tainted 
with  Sadducean  views,  traces  of  the  latter  are  still  found 
in  some  of  the  apocryphal  books ;  in  the  Greek  version  of 
the  Scriptures  (LXX)  ;  in  the  Aramaic  version,  Pseudo- 
Jonathan;27  in  the  halakic  midrashim  from  the  school  of 
R.  Ishmael,  himself  a  priest  and  with  priestly  sympathies* 
and.  to  a  lesser  extent,  in  the  later  Palestinian  halakic 
works,  Tosefta  and  Talmud  Jerushalmi.29 

But  not  only  are  we  able  to  reconstruct  parts  of  the 
Sadducean  Halakah  through  the  traces  in  these  works, 
but  the  Sadducean  tradition  is  still  alive,  its  laws  are  observ- 
ed and  its  practices  carried  out  by  their  descendants,  the 
Karaites;  not  only  are  they  the  followers  and  spiritual 
heirs  of  the  Sadducees,  but  their  physical  descendants. 
Doctrines  and  practices  adhered  to  and  observed  by  a  na- 
tion do  not  disappear  at  the  desire  of  its  leaders.  Nor 
were  the  Sadducees  annulled.  The  descendants  of  the 
once  dominant  party  continued  to  live  according  to  the 
traditions  of  their  ancestors.     The  religious  unrest  prev- 

26  Jiid.   Zcitschrift,   VIII,   284   ff. 

27  Urschrtft,    .6?;    4S1    ff.;    Nachg.   Schriften,    IV,    108    ff.;    V    (Heb.),    II2 
ff. ;    see   below. 

28  ltt*»M    and    ncD;    Urschrift,  434   ff.;  Jiid.   Zeitschr.   IV,   96   ff. ;   VIII, 
284;    IX,    8    ff.;    XI,    5,    ff.,    and  elsewhere. 

29  See  Jiid  Zeitschrift,    VIII,   29,    ff.      For  the   Jerushalmi  comp.   MGWJ 
i8;i,    120    ff. 


14  KARAITE   HALAKAII RF.YKL 

alent  in  the  Islamic  world  in  the  eighth  century  caused  them 
also  to  unite  and  defy  their  old  enemies,  the  Pharisees. 
Their  leader  Anan  gave  them  his  name,  which  was,  how- 
ever, soon  changed  to  the  appellation  D'&np    or   &npe  '33. 

Karaism  is,  thus,  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  late-day 
revolt  against  the  authority  of  Tradition  caused  by  out- 
side influence,  but  is  a  survival  in  a  somewhat  modified 
form  (as  by  belief  in  resurrection)  of  the  pre-  and  anti- 
Pharisaic  tradition.30 

30  D.  Chwolson  in  his  Beitrage  sur  Entwicklungsgeschichte  d.  Judenthums 
(Leipzig  1910)  goes  further  than  Geiger,  and  asserts  that  long  after  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple,  the  Sadducees  were  predominant  (pp.  10-22).  He 
bases  this  view  on  the  assumption  that  during  the  time  of  the  Second  Com- 
monwealth the  Sadducees  constituted  not  only  the  priestly  and  secular 
aristocracy,  but  also  the  bulk  of  the  people,  their  disappearance  with  the 
destruction  of  the   State    being    therefore    inconceivable    (p.    23    ff.). 

Chwolson  also  believes  that  it  was  the  people  who  remained  faithful  to 
the  Sadducean  tradition  who  are  designated  in  the  talmudic  literature  by 
the  name  pXH  DJJ  -  This  accounts  for  the  mutual  hatred  that  existed 
between  the  Am-haares  and  Pharisaic  teachers  (p.  a).  Chwolson  adduces 
the  talmudic  account  (b.  Berakot  476  and  parallel)  of  the  ceremonies  the 
non-observance  of  which  characterized  the  Am-haares,  as  proof  of  the  latter 
being  identical  with  the  Sadducees.  It  is  there  said  that  the  Am-haares  does 
not  read  the  Shcma' ;  that  he  does  not  put  on  the  phylacteries;  that  he  does 
not  wear  fringes  on  his  garments  and  that  he  has  no  Mezuzah  on  his  door. 
Now  the  Karaites  even  up  to  this  day  observe  none  of  these  ceremonies. 
Some  relationship  must  exist  between  the  Am-haares  and  the  Karaites.  As 
the  Karaites  are,  Chwolson  believes,  descendants  of  the  Sadducees,  a  rela- 
tionship is  established  between  the  Am-haares  and  Sadducees. 

The  facts  are,  however,  not  as  Chwolson  puts  them.  The  Karaitees  have 
never  rejected  the  biblical  precept  of  fVX'X,  even  if  they  differ  as  to 
the  meaning  of  rhlft  and  some  other  details;  see,  for  Anan,  Harkavy, 
]yjh  niSOn  "IfiD  ,  pp.  7-10,  and  Schechter,  Jewish  Sectaries,  II,  25,  1-26,  17; 
Hadassi,  Alph.  241  and  364  (1366);  MiM.iar,  Num.,  ad  loc.,  ]1J?  ]i  ,  Sob  ff.; 
niaSB  imJl  (Neubauer,  Aits  d.  Petersburgcr  Bibliothck),  49a  ff.;  comp. 
also  Ibn  Kzra  on  Num.  15,  38,  39.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  the  Karaites  have 
even  denied  the  duty  of  reading  the  Sheuia'.  Abu  Isa  Isfahani,  from  whom 
Anan  borrowed  several  laws  (comp.  Poznaiiski,  RE  J.,  XLIV  (1902),  178), 
taught,   according   to   Kirkisani    (comp.   Harkavy,    sS^r,2     nifi3il     limp1?  ,   9) 


KARAITE    IIAI.AKAII — REVEL  15 

The  reliability  of  the  traditional  account  of  the  origin 
of  the  Sadducees  and  Boethusians  (Abot  de  R.  Nathan, 
ch.  5),  rejected  by  Geiger  (UrscJirift,  105  ff.)  as  an 
apocryphal  legend,  was  vindicated  by  Baneth  in  Magazm) 
IX  (1882),  p.  1-37;  61-95,  where  is  also  shown  how  far 
the  view  of  Geiger — that  the  Sadducees  did  not  reject 
Tradition  but  adhered  to  a  more  ancient  interpretation  of 
the  Law — contradicts  the  explicit  statements  of  Josephus 
(Ant.  XIII,  10,  6;  XVII,  1,  4)  and  all  the  Talmudic  ac- 
counts  about   them.31 

Before  we  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  agreements 
between  the  Sadducees  and  the  Karaites  which  serve 
Geiger  as  proofs  of  the  relation  of  the  latter  to  the  former, 
a  few  words  will  not  be  amiss  on  the  general  difficulties 
connected    with    the    hypothesis,    which    were   ignored  by 

the  duty  of  reading  the  Shema',  Its  reading  is  enjoined  by  the  later  Karaites; 
see  Hadassi,  Alph.  15  (15c/);  lrpSx  m"tK ,  59c;  see  Weiss,  "in,  IV,  SS;  L. 
Low.  Ges.  Schr.t  I,  50.  Neither  can  the  Am-haares  be  identified  with  the 
Sadducees  by  his  non-observance  of  the  law  of  Tefillin.  The  Sadducees 
accepted  the  literal  interpretation  of  Deut.  6,  8  (see  Weiss,  I,  118;  Fiirst, 
Ccschichte  d.  Karaerthums,  I,  10;  Graetz,  III,  3,  395;  comp.  also  Miiller, 
Masechet  Soferim,  p.  21,  note  66).  The  name  <pHi'  in  Menahot  42b  1ED 
...'pm  priDtf  nitrai  j'S'En  mm  misled  Wreschner  (Samaritanische  Tra- 
ditional, Berlin  1888,  intr.,  p.  VIII)  and  T.  A.  Montgomery  (The 
Samaritans,.  Philadelphia  1908,  136)  to  believe  that  the  Sadducees 
interpreted  Deut.  6,  S  symbolically.  »pl*7S  in  Menahot  (/.  c.)  is,  as  often 
in  the  Amoraic  literature,  equivalent  to  ]<0,  or  was,  as  usual,  substituted 
therefor  by  the  censor.  The  parallel  passage  (Gittin  45b)  reads  f'O  instead 
of  »pHS,  which  is  also  the  reading  of  Estori  ha-Pharhi,  msi  "iriBS,  end 
of  ch.  5.  Harkavy  ( J3J?S  niXOH  1ED  ,  142,  n.  12)  believes  that  Anan 
interpreted  Deut.  6,  9  literally  but  referred  Dnsnsi  to  the  mi2in  FHVy 
a   view  which   is   held   also   by   the    Palashas    (Epstein,   Eldad   ha-Dani,    174). 

31  Comp.  also  Wellhausen,  Die  Pharisaer  it.  die  Sadducder,  Greifswald 
'877,  73;  G.  Holscher,  Der  Sadditcdismus,  Leipzig  1906,  pp.  9,  33  ff.,  107 
ff.  The  general  nature  of  the  Sadducees  was  recently  thoroughly  discussed 
by  I.   Halevy   in   his    0'31B»Min     flllH,    vol.    If,    pp.    358    ff. 


l6  KARAITE   HALAKAH REVEL 

Geiger.  Geiger  believes  that  all  the  differences  between  the 
Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  may  be  brought  under  one 
unifying  principle,  viz.,  the  advocacy  of  priestly  interests 
by  the  Sadducees.  But  if  this  was  the  distinctive  mark  of 
the  Sadducees,  what  import  could  this  tendency  have  had 
many  centuries  after  the  destruction  of  the  Temple,  when 
there  was  no  more  priestly  aristocracy  nor  prerogative? 
And  how  could  this  issue  sustain  and  keep  alive  Sadduce- 
ism  under  the  appellative  CNip  until  to-day?  Nor  can  we 
comprehend  how  Karaism  whose  basic  principle  since  the 
days  of  its  first  exponent  Anan  was  "vsi"  xrrniN'n  itrsn 
"Search  the  Scripture,82  interpret  it  according  to  your 
own  reason,  and  act  accordingly,"  ignoring  tradition, — 
how  Karaism  could  have  descended  from  Sadduceism 
which,  as  Geiger  himself  asserts,  was  by  its  very  nature 
conservative,  adhering  stringently  to  ancient  tradition. 

This  Sadducean-Karaite  theory  of  Geiger  is  closely 
connected  with  his  hypothesis  concerning  the  existence  of 
an  ancient  Halakah  related  to  the  Sadducean  and  which 
was  therefore  suppressed  by  the  later  Pharisees,  a  view 
that  has  been  accepted  by  many  scholars.  A  brief  discus- 
sion of  this  hypothesis  in  relation  to  Karaism  is  given  here. 

The  Targum  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  the  Pentateuch  is, 
as  Geiger  (Urschrift,  162  ff.,  451  ff. ;  N.  S.,  IV,  106  ff. ;  V 
(Heb.),  112  ff.)  believes,  the  main  depository  of  remnants 
and  traces  of  this  ancient  Sadducean-Samaritan-Karaite 
Flalakah.  Ps.-Jon.,  being  a  product  of  Palestine  at  a  time 
when  the  more  ancient  Sadducean  traditions  had  not  alto- 
gether died  out  there — though  changed  to  conform  to  the 
New   Halakah — ,   still  contains  much  which  goes   back   to 

82  Harkavy     pj?S    mSDH     "IDD  ,    132,    176;    so    Sahl    b.    Ma?liab    (Pinsker, 
II,   33-4);   comp.    Poznanski,   REJ.,   XLIV    (1902),    180    ff. 


KARAITE   HALAKAH — RKVKI.  I  "J 

those  ante-Pharisaic  traditions.  As  proof  of  this  view, 
Geiger  (Urschrift,  1/6  ff.)  attempted  to  show  that  several 
Karaite  anti-traditional  laws  are  found  among  the  Samari- 
tans and  in  Ps.-Jon.  The  following  are  the  main  points  of 
agreement  which  Geiger  finds  between  the  Karaite  law 
and  the  Targum  Pseudo- Jonathan  and  which  lie  therefore 
believes  to  be  survivals  of  the  ancient  halakah. 

According  to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  Lev.  19. 
24,  the  fruit  of  a  tree  in  its  fourth  year  is,  like  the  "second 
tithe,"  to  be  consumed  by  the  owner  within  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem.  This  is  also  the  view  of  Josephus,  Ant.,  IV,  8. 
19.  Pseudo- Jonathan,  however,  translates  'r\h  D'bvfl  EHp  V~iD 
(Lev.  19,  24)  by  x:ni  jn  piano  'n  dtp  ;mnn  »Enip;so  also 
on  Deut.  20,  6.33  The  Samaritans  and  Karaites  also 
take  Dvlbn  BHp  to  mean  that  it  is  to  be  given  to  the 
priest  or  redeemed  by  its  owner.  Geiger  {Urschrift,  181- 
184)  believes  this  to  have  been  the  view  of  the  ancient 
Halakah.  Since  this  interpretation  agrees  with  the  plain 
meaning  of  c^n  t'Hp  (comp.  Ibn  Ezra  ad  loc),  there 
is  no  necessity  to  assume  with  Geiger  that  this  interpre- 
tation by  some  34  Karaites  goes  back  to  an  ancient  tradition. 

33  Comp.  Epstein,  MGWJ.,  XL  (1896),  142;  Gronemann,  Die  Jona- 
than'sclie  Pentaieuch-U  ebersetzxtng  in  ihrem  Verhaltnisse  sur  Halacha, 
Leipzig  1879,  48.  For  the  view  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees  7,  35-7,  see  B. 
Beer,  Das  Bitch  d.  Jubilaen,  43-44. 

34  Not  all  the  Karaites,  as  Geiger  {Urschrift,  182)  thinks;  see  flTIK 
1!"I,£?X  ,  70a,  and  mill  iri3  ,  Lev.  54a.  Geiger  refers  to  Mibhar,  ad  loc. 
Aaron     b.     Joseph,     however,     contradicts     himself;     see     Mibhar,     Num.     4b: 

nna  ?"2n  inif21  13100 ;  comp.  however,  the  super-commentary  Sp3  m»B 
on  Mibhar,  Deut.  16a,  letter  109.  The  view  that  »J73"1  J»a3  belongs  to  the 
priest  is  held  by  Samuel  al-Magrabi  (M.  Lorge,  Die  Speisegesetze  der  Karaer 
Ton  Samuel  el-Magrebi,  Berlin  1907,  23,  end).  Geiger  finds  this  view  also  in 
p.  Sotah  8,  5;  but  see  Pineles,  mm  7C*  !"l3"n,  176  ff.,  and  Gronemann,  /.  c. 
For  the  meaning    of    that    passage    see    also    N.    Z.    Berlin,    in    Halevy's   fllin 


l8  KARAITE   HALAKAH REVKL 

According  to  Tradition,  two  tithes  were  to  be  taken 
every  year  (except  the  sabbatical  year).  The  "first  tithe" 
(Num.  1 8,  21  ft.)  and  the  "second  tithe"  (Deut.  14,  22  fL) 
are  to  be  taken  in  the  first,  second,  fourth,  and  fifth  years ; 
the  "first  tithe"  and  the  tithe  for  the  poor  (Deut.  26,  12 
ft*.)  in  the  third  and  sixth  years  of  every  cycle  of  seven 
years.  Geiger  (Urschrift,  176  ff.)  contends  that  the 
ancient  Halakah  required  the  taking  of  all  these  three  tithes 
in  the  third  and  sixth  years,  as  the  Karaites  hold.85     He 

C'ZlKWin,  III,  313-4;  comp.  also  Poznariski,  HEipr"?  D'yJHJTI  D«i1»  D'ViJf 
D'JlNJn  ,  16  ff.  Hadassi  (Alph.  205  (18c)  and  303  (112^))  also  holds  that 
the  fruits  of  the  fourth  year  belong  to  the  priests.  As  was  pointed  out 
already  by  Maimonides  (HIIIDX  m?2X!3  10,  18)  the  mistaken  view  of  some 
Geonim  that  the    fruits    of    the    fourth    year    are    not    to    be    eaten — even    when 


redeemed — during  the  fourth  year  was  caused  by  Lev.  19,  25:  ri'Cann  nscai 
VIE  nx  17DKD  which  seems  to  prohibit  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  the 
fourth  year  during  that  year  (Tosafot  Rosh  ha-shanah  10a,  s.  v.  nil'Bl; 
V"")  to  Maaser  Sheni  5,  1  and  Asheri,  nSlJ*  'fl,  end,  quote  this  view  from 
Halakot  Gedolot.  See  also  She'eltot  No.  10,  but  see  Kaminka,  mpit,  II,  21). 
This  accounts  also  for  the  interpretation  of  verse  24  by  Ps.-Jon.,  many 
Karaites,  and  even  Ibn  Ezra  (ad  loc.)  to  mean  that  the  fruits  of  the  fourth 
year  are  to  be  given  to  the  priests  and  that  the  owner  is  to  enjoy  the  fruits 
of  the  fifth  year  (v.  25).  For  the  view  of  Geiger  see  also  Jiid.  Zeitschrift,  II, 
183;   Nachgel  Schr.,   IV,   38,    107. 

S5  Not  all;    see    mifl  "IflS,   Deut.    iSa:      TUV2V  DnaiN   Xipa    »"7j?3B     tT'l 

»ap  itrya  neon  nvuppo  c^tr  N'xia  rvtr^trai  nntppa  'ntr  ;mj  n'jci  naitrxv, 

comp.  H.  Olitzki,  Flavius  Josephus  und  die  Halacha,  Berlin  1885,  16-19. 
See  also  Mibhar,  Deut.,  12a;  23b;  and  E|D3  n*TB  to  the  last  mentioned  place, 
letters  27-28.  According  to  Anan  (Schechter,  Jezvish  Sectaries  II,  p.  5  11. 
10-19)  two  tithes  are  to  be  taken  every  year.  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning 
of  his  words:   "im    DM*?"?  "1B>J?B    in    1B»J?B  '3    '2    [lfMB]    ja»BnBB     '«*     pM31 

''  'x  'a  i»nfo(  '»  '3eS  nSaxi  'ai  itryn  "ic;*  'an  [m»n«n]a  n<S  pSax  nt*pa 
'«  »:eS  nSaxi  xax  xpn  rvS  j»"»h  Sxnc  ntrya  [»wn  c]c  ib»  ppS 
<axn  dib«b  c^xp  -itrya  pan  by  x"?x  »i"j  '•aa^i  'an  [ciSS  ntrjva  tAm  -jtiSn 
wyB  im  onS"?  ic^a  nn  itryapin  wibmS  oxcS  jnna  [itri'n  ib>]>  c]npx 
pain  »a»n  »a  enpan  n»aa  c,L,ya  [;,:,ax]  •  A  similar  view  is  mentioned  in  -ina 
min  on  Deut.,  iSa:  nexn  rvnwy&n  ja  ini'tr  na  n'tr,£T  n;tra:r  anew  tr»i 


KARAITE   IIALAKA1I — REVEL  19 

bases  this  opinion  on  Tobit  10,  7,  8  (against  which  see  F. 
Rosenthal,  Vier  Apokryphische  Biichcr,  Leipzig  1885,  117, 
note),  Josephus  Ant.  IV,  8,  22,  Sifre  to  Deut.  12,  17;  14,  28 
(against  which  see  Weiss,  "n  "in  in ,  I,  126,  note);  buz 
mainly  on  Ps.-Jon.  to  Deut.  26,  12-13:  tP\WSb  jivtrn  ana* 
nxop  xicryo  funm  Kfco'DKh  xrvrrSn  xne>3  *irMy  "itryo  ba  jv 
Knboiwbi  x^rrS  unwb  kwdd  tbwb  mn  t«"jn  x-ii"yo  wbb 
■jnbx  'n  dip  bftTii  pD'fl  wn^n  wdi  :  pyaDn  "pnpn  p^m 
w^j  nxop  x-icyo  parr  Ttnbi  xrra  jo  x"tmp  perron  xn  -ioth 
xb  ""jnTpsn  "im'psn  ^33  ti  xbonxbi  xorvb  nvj?  xrjn  x-icryo 
n"B>JX  K?1  T'^pS  jo  xnn  rinay.  As  was  already  pointed 
out  by  M.  Olitzki  (Flavins  Josephus  and  die  Halacha, 
18,  note)  and  Bassfreund  (MGWJ.,  XL  1896),  5 
ft.),  there  is  nothing  in  Ps.-Jon.  to  these  two  verses 
to  justify  the  view  of  Geiger.  What  Ps.-Jon.  adds 
to  the  translation  of  the  text  is  entirely  in  agree- 
ment with  tradition  (Sifre,  II,  109  and  302)  that  in 
the  myan  m&  all  the  tithes  from  the  last  three  years  must 
be  removed,  the  first  tithe  given  to  the  Levite  and  the 
"second  tithe"  carried  to  Jerusalem.  (See  also  on  the 
whole  Pineles,  min  h®  nam,  173-6,  and  Gronemann,  p. 
161   fr.).36 

<:trn  ja  »ayni  iStr  npiS  nSn  ijn»  bm»sio  »aan.  Harkavy's  suggestion  (mxon  'o 

jajH,  142,  note  18)  that  Ibn  Ezra  on  Deut.  14,  28  meant  Anan  and  the 
Karaites  is  thus  proved  erroneous;  comp.  also  Book  of  Jubilees  32,  n.  For 
a  full  refutation  of  the  view  of  Geiger,  see  Bassfreund,  MGWJ.,  XL  (1896), 
5-8. 

36  Geiger,  on  the  basis  of  his  theory  that  R.  EHezer  b.  Hyrcanus  and 
R.  Ishmael  represent  the  ancient  Halakah  related  to  Sadducean  Tradition 
(see  above),  sees  also  in  every  agreement  of  Ps.-Jon.  with  the  interpretation 
of  R.  Eliezer  or  R.  Ishmael  ancient  laws,  which  were  changed  by  the  school 
of  R.  Akiba  (Urschrift,  447,  472  ff . ;  Nachg.  Schriften,  IV,  106-7).  It  was 
however  shown  by  Gronemann  (119,  note  2;  see  also  103,  note;  139-140, 
notes;  comp.  also  Epstein,  MGWJ.,  XL  (1896),  142)  that  Ps.-Jon.  does  not 
always    follow    the    interpretation    of    the    school    of    R.    Ishmael    against    that 


20  KARAITE   HALAKAH REVEL 

An  agreement  between  Pseuclo-Jonathan  and  many 
Karaites,  not  noticed  by  Geiger,  is  their  interpretation  of 
Lev.  18,  21  ibvb  Taynb  jnn  ab  lynrai  as  referring  to  mar- 
riage with  a  Gentile  woman;*7  see  Kirkisani  n,  23;  Hadassi 
(Alph.  324) :  pins  ..."iji  ibob  Taynb  jnn  xb  T,jnTOi  niox  my 
noV'ayn  rroao  mp*  n^p  mn  "hbok  by  tidx  ■•a  now  ,j^;  see  ib.. 
Alph.  278,  313  and  364;  see  also  min  "inn,  ad  /oc.  (49a). 
This  interpretation,  though  censured  in  the  Mishnah  (Me- 
gillah  3,  9;  comp.  am  dv  mSDin  orf  /oc),  is  given 
in  the  name  of38  bwflDB*  *m  ''an  ion  (Megillah  25a;  p. 
Sanhedrin  9,  7,  see  also  Sifre  II,  171)  and  as  Friedmann, 
Bet  Talmud,  I,  336-7  (comp.  Ginzburger,  MGIVJ.,  1900. 
6  ff.),  points  out,  the  Mishnah  simply  meant  that  this  verse 
is  not  to  be  interpreted  in  this  way  in  public  as  it  adds  to 
the  text. 

of  R.  Akiba,  his  acceptance  of  the  former  being  mostly  conditioned  by  their 
being  nearer  to  the  plain  meaning  of  the  verse;  comp.  also  the  view  of  D. 
Hoffmann,   Zur  Einleitung  in   die   halachischen  Midraschim,   pp.   74-76. 

37  This  verse,  as  Frankel  (Einflitss,  156)  remarks,  gave  rise  to  many 
divergent  interpretations.  Anan  also  interpreted  this  verse  allegorically;  see 
Harkavy,  pjp  mSOP!  1BD  ,  207,  and  Schechter,  Jewish  Sectaries,  II,  32. 
The  interpretation  in  the  Book  of  Jubilees  30,  7-10  of  this  verse  as  referring 
to  one  who  effects  a  union  between  a  Jewish  woman  and  a  Gentile  and  that 
such  action  is  punished  by  death  is  found  also  among  the  Karaites;  so 
Samuel  al-Magrabi  (Book  of  Precepts  called  IC'-ieSx  ,  a  unique  MS.  of  the 
Hebrew  translation  of  the  ItrioSx  written  in  1722  by  Samuel  b.  Solomon 
ha-Kohen  (see  Pinsker,  II,  144-5;  Gottlober,  D'NipPI  nilSinS  mp3,  202, 
note)    now  in  the  library    of    the    Jewish    Theological    Seminary    of    America), 

222a:  ;o  nnx  by^  xb  bmv>o  mxn  >a  inson  ma  px*in  '3  nnoix  trn 
niaixS  iyiT  x»xin  <o  pi  ...news  na  ;nu  D'Kitwa  pai  nuta  pa  cun 
>aao  ntrxa  tya»  'a  cno  ex  puna  is  ana  ncx:>  inuta  ix  irA'yaa  D^iyn 
D':ana  no'Jia  nxr  ntriyn  Vy  itji  'n  ntr  SSns  xin  run  ncynn  ncijrn  tonts» 
p«n  dj?  n»  ^y. 

38  Comp.  Rashi,  od  /oc;  Aruk,  c  v.  D1X  ;  S.  L.  Rapoport,  niW'  nSnj, 
Krakau  1868,  p.  231  ff.;  Geiger,  Urschrift,  304;  Nachg.  Schriftcn,  IV,  106; 
Berliner,   Onkelos,   II,   88   ff.   and   literature   quoted  there. 


KARAITE  HALAKAH — KKYKI.  21 

The  Karaites  agree  with  Ps.-Jon.  to  Lev.  I,  4  and  3,  2, 
(against  Sifra  to  16,  21 ;  Menahot  93a;  Tosefta  ib.,  10,  3;  so 
also  Philo,  II,  241)   that  pip  ro'DD   is  with  the  right  hand 


only.  See  Mibhar,  Lev..  3a:  "pDD1  nnxn  vvn  ...rMD'n  :W  "]DD1 
nbipn  'Sya  -nox  "il'»xi  n^ncon  y<yw  bv  pi  d't  *nBQ  h^dd  pso 
Drtap  ^y  -ojriD  mron  [d,-p  viea] .  So  also  Mibhar,  Lev., 
27a,  and  min  im  on  Lev.  1,  4  (36,  end).  But  see  D. 
Hoffmann,  Zur  Einleitung  in  die  halachischen  Mid- 
raschim,  Berlin  1887,  p.  75,  who  contends  that  this 
interpretation  of  Ps.-Jon.  (which  is  also  favored  by  the  BSPB; 
see  Ibn  Ezra  on  Lev.  1,  4)  goes  back  to  the  school  of  R. 
Ishmael. 

Ps.-Jon.  translates  ntnn  PltPK  in  Dent.  24,  5,  against 
Sifre  ad.  loc.  and  Sotah  44a,  by  xmn  Nr6im.  This  is  also 
the  interpretation  of  n&nn  by  many  Karaites.  See  py  }J, 
154&:  hjd^x  bin  ...\"iv  rise:  vhw  run  inn  nenn  ni-s  noxm 
ntrrn  ncrx  xnpn  *6  pxitwri  id  ncTU  ik.  So  also  min  -iro, 
ad  /oc.  (27b).  See,  however,  Mibhar  arf  /oc.  (20&). 
Samuel  al-Magrabi  (MS.  95a)  states  that  the  Karaites 
are  divided  on  the  interpretation  of  ncnn  ntrx.  This 
deviation  of  Ps.-Jon.  and  some  of  the  Karaites  from 
the  talmudic  interpretation  of  nenn  rests  on  the  plain 
meaning  of  that  word.  See  Ibn  Ezra  ad  loc;  comp.  Grone- 
mann,  /.  c,  p.  67. 

While,  as  we  have  seen,  the  proofs  adduced  by  Geiger 
do  not  establish  relationship  between  the  ancient  Halakah, 
believed  by  him  to  be  contained  in  Pseudo- Jonathan,  and 
the  Karaite  Halakah,  the  following  consideration,  not  hith- 
erto noted,  arises  against  any  attempt  at  connecting  the 
Karaite  law  with  the  ancient  Sadducean  Halakah  which 
is  believed  to  be  represented  in  Ps.Jon. : 


22  KARAITE  HALAKAH — REVEL 

If  the  deviation  of  Ps.-Jon.  from  our  Halakah  go  back 
to  ancient  tradition  related  to  Sadduceism,  then  we  should 
expect  the  Karaites — a  later  name  for  Sadduceism,  accord- 
ing to  this  view — to  be  in  agreement  with  such  deviations 
of  Ps.-Jon,  The  following  examination  of  the  main 
halakic  divergences  of  Ps.-Jon.  from  our  Halakah  and  of 
the  view  of  the  Karaites  on  these  points  will  show  how 
untenable  this  view  is.39 

According  to  Tradition  (Mekilta,  Mishpatim,  i,  ed. 
Fried.,  74b;  Arakin  18b;  p.  Kiddushin  59a;  Maim.  DH3y, 
4,  4)  the  seventh  year  in  which  the  Jewish  male  or  female 

39  Ginsburger's  edition  of  Ps.-Jon.  (Berlin  1903)  is  followed  here.  Most 
of  the  differences  between  Ps.-Jon.,  and  our  Halakah  are  collected  by 
Gronemann,  ib.  He  includes,  however,  renderings  of  some  passages  not  being 
aware  that  Ps.-Jon.  followed  in  their  interpretation  the  Jerushalmi.  Comp. 
ib.,  p.  48,  in  reference  to  Deut.  17,  5,  y\yv  bx,  which  is  the  interpretation 
of  the  p31  in  p.  Sanhedrin  6,  1.  See  also  Onkelos,  ad  loc,  and  Ps.-Jon.  on 
Deut.  22,  24;  comp.  MGIVJ.,  LII  (1908),  217,  note  1.  This  also  explains 
Ps.-Jonathan's    rendering    of    Lev.     11,     11     li'ptJTI   Crfo:   HN1   by    Jinrfo'a   HM 

lipmnn     ;inn"jn    pi    psptrn     which  Hoffmann   (ZfhB.,  vii,   1903,  47; 

comp.  Reifmann,  Bet  Talmud,  I,  314)  considers  to  be  anti-traditional.  But 
see  p.  Shebiit  7,  1:  inx  vh*  D3^  V.T  D'NOBl  V'fl  HE  [Clb]  DPI  E'NOU  3»fl3 
nsOH  "IID'N  iriNI  nS'3N  TID'X  the  meaning  of  which,  as  is  evident  from 
what  follows  there,  is  that  n^DX  HID'N  are  not  to  be  made  objects  for 
trade  and  gain  (see  b.  Pesahim  23a).  Ps.-Jon.  in  his  ;ipmnn  ;inn":PI  JD1 
thus  follows  the  Jerushalmi;  comp.  also  the  fragment  of  a  commentary  to 
p.  Shabbat  published  by  Poznanski  in  mpn,  II,  49  and  n.  4,  and  Saadia 
Gaon  on  Lev.  11,  11  published  by  Hirschfeld  in  JQR.,  XIX,  140,  beginning, 
K'2D  n»S  Jinron  in  Ps.-Jon.  to  Deut.  17,  18  (comp.  Reifmann,  /.  c,  p. 
348)  may  be  a  reference  to  p.  Sanhedrin  2,  6  (20c;  comp.  Tosefta  ib.,  4,  7; 
Maim.,  C^bn  3,    1 ) :    N"j,*  h\ff    |H    Pl'3    '£  b?    niTJ,"    nEDO   mix   JWJBl. 

Ps.-Jon.  translates  also  Deut.  21,  7  in  accordance  with  the  Palestinian  in- 
terpretation as  referring  to  the  murderer.  See  p.  Sotah  9,  6;  comp.  b.  ib., 
38b  and  Rashi,  ad  loc.  See  also  on  the  Halakah  of  Ps.-Jon.  J.  Reifman,  Bet 
Talmud,  I,  215  ff.,  347  ff. ;  A.  Biichler,  Die  Priester  und  der  Cultiis,  Wien 
1895.  IS1  ff • ;  D.  Hoffmann,  Zur  Einlcitung  in  d.  haldchischcn  Midraschim, 
74-76;  id.,  in  ZfhB.,   VII    (1903),  46-48. 


KARAITE    HALAKAII — KJ-.VF.r,  2\ 

slave  is  to  be  released  (Ex.  21,2;  Deut.  15,  12)  refers 
not  to  the  Sabbath  year  (nBOWl  rUB>  ),  but  to  the  seventh 
year  from  the  commencement  of  their  servitude.'10  Ps.- 
Jon.,  however,  seems  to  interpret  nyafe>ai  "the  sabbatical 
year"  (Ps.-Jon.  to  Ex.  21,  7;  22,  2;  but  see  Ps.-Jon.  to 
Ex.  21,  2  and  to  Deut.  15,  12).  The  Karaites  differing 
among  themselves  on  the  laws  of  slavery  agree  with  Tra- 
dition that  niOEai  refers  to  the  seventh  year  of  servitude. 
See  r&n  iiNC'o,  rrf:  em?  6J^o  w  nur  16  laojc  bine* 
n:n  'L-an^  x^  nyapai  nam  d<jk>  c^>  ['«?]  d»d!w;  Samuel 
ai-Magrabi  (S.  Gitelsohn,  £te  Civil-Gesetse  der  Karaer 
von  Samuel  al-Magrabi,  Berlin  1904,  2,  line  1)  ; 
Afendopolo's  appendix  to  in^x  mnK  9c :  ppa  na»JP  lay 
■no  bv  mx-a  nyo  lfon  d^jjti  *a  srev  u»k  nuci"  ta.Tra  dn  q>:v 

Geiger  holds  (Urschrift,  190  ff.)  that  the  ancient  Hal- 
akah  did  not  distinguish  between  paid  and  gratuitous 
guardians,  as  does  Tradition  (B.  M.  93a)  but  made  the 
difference  in  responsibility  depend  on  the  nature  of  the 
goods  entrusted.  It  referred  Ex.  22,  6-8  to  things  light 
hi  which  case  the  guardian  is  liable  only  for  lack  of  ordin- 
ary care,  and  verses  8-13  to  things  heavy   for  which  the 

«  So  also  Josephus  (H.  Weyl,  Die  judischen  Strafgesetze  bei  Flavins 
Joscphus,  Berlin  1900,  I22;  oiitzki,  Magazin,  XVI  (1889),  78).  On  the 
view  of  Philo,  see  Ritter,  59,  and  Weyl,  /.  c,  note  x9.  The  Samaritans  also 
interpret  n?3»21  as  the  seventh  year  of  the  servitude  (Klumel,  Misch- 
patim,  Ein  samaritonisch-arabischer  Comment ar  su  Ex.  XXI-XXII  15  von 
Ibrahim  ibn  Jakub,  Berlin  i9M,  p.  II).  They  disagree,  however,  with 
Tradltlon  in  referring  Ex.  2I>  2-7>  to  a  proseIyte  (/.  ft)  a  vfew  ^.^  .g 
also  represented  among  the  Karaites  (Jepheth  b.  Ali  quoted  in  Mibhar,  Ex 
40a;  IT;  p,  i48rf;  mm  TIW,  Ex.  68b;  wbH  rmu  (Odessa  i87o),  i89rf; 
Samuel  al-Magrabi  (Gitelsohn,  p.  ,,  5).  The  Samaritans  take  0<?iyS  VBjn 
(v.  6)  literally  (Klumel,  p.  VII)  as  do  also  some  Karaites  (see  in«fel  miK, 
90a;  Samuel  al-Magrabi   (Gitelsohn,   5)). 


24  KARAITE)  HALAKAH — REVEL 

guardian  is  responsible  even  if  they  were  stolen.  Ps.-Jon. 
tiking  vs.  9-1 1,  against  the  talmudic  interpretation  (Mekilta, 
ad  loc;  Baba  Mesi'a  94b)  as  referring  to  a  gratutious 
guardian  TCJ  "ijx  xbn  and  v.  11,  with  the  Talmud,  to  a 
paid  guardian  tdj  -ijn  rroy  rrb  mm,  represents  according 
to  Geiger  (ib.)  an  intermediate  state  in  the  development  of 
the  law  of  guardians.41 

All  the  later  Karaites  accept  fully  the  traditional  in- 
terpretation of  Ex.  22,  6-15  as  referring  to  four  kinds  of 
guardians,  so  Mibhar,  ad  loc,  44^-450 /  rnin  "U"i3,  ad  loc, 
7?a-b;  py  p,  DnmtP  ny:riN  p,  182&-184C;  Samuel  al- 
Magrabi,  MS.,  136a  ff. 

Ps.-Jon.  interprets  Lev.  5,  1  against  Tradition  (Sifra 
ad  loc.)  interpret  this  verse  like  Tradition,  as  referring 
another  person  swearing  falsely  or  breaking  an  oath  and 
conceals  it  (comp.  Reifmann,  /.  c,  313,  and  Hoffman, 
Lcz'iticus,  I,  199,  note).42  The  Karaites  (inan  and  rnin  "iro, 
ad  loc.)  interpret  this  verse  like  Tradition,  as  referring 
to    nnyn  nyni". 

Geiger  (Urschrift,  477)  finds  support  for  his  view 
that  according  to  the    Sadducees    all  the    work    connected 


41  See  RaSHbaM  on  v.  6;  comp.  Reifmann,  Bet  Talmud,  I,  219.  The 
view  of  Gronemann,  77  ff.,  is  improbable,  comp.  ib.,  note.  For  Philo's  and 
Josephus'  interpretation  of  these  verses  see  Ritter,  p.  61  ff.,  and  Weyl,  p. 
130  ff.  Hadassi  (Alph.  370)  refers  verses  6-10  to  ]'7E7lID  and  verses  10-13 
to  D'Tl  >7j*3.  Benjamin  Nehawendi  seems  also  to  make  this  distinction 
(1*0*33   nSE'D,    2b)    but    contradicts    himself.      He    says    {ib.,    36):  2'TI   Pll70n 

naaaa  s*»m  laicS  non  Kin  »a  "naya  uon  lain   c?ncai  mBiapn  »m  uhvh 

'■Ul   10yO     3JJI'    31 J  J)     ONI     10NJB*,   thus  referring  verse    11    to    p7B7t3D. 

*2  Philo  makes  such  reticence  a  capital  crime  (II,  275;  Ritter,  p.  47; 
comp.  IVerke  Philos,  II,  114,  note  4).  This  interpretation  of  Ps.-Jon.  seems 
to  have  escaped   Ritter   (/.   c). 


KARAITE   IIAI.AKAII — RKVKi. 


25 


with  the  Red  Heifer  was  to  be  done  by  priests  only"  in 
Ps.-Jon.  to  Num.  19,  9.  18  on  pna  naa  BWl  (comp. 
also  r.riill,  £<?/  Talmud,  I.  270). 

The  Karaites,  however,  agree  with  Tradition  in  the  in- 
terpretation of  -nnB  l-n  (  so  also  Philo  II.  253  )  ;  and  Mibhar 
(ad  loc,  186)  records  the  opinion  of  some  Karaites  that 
even  ma  riant?  (v.  5),  which  according  to  Tradition  is 
nrn  s1DD     (see  note  ^^  does  not  requjre  a  prjest . 

|m  nrm  in  fna  inrnb  prp  epipn  onoiN  b»i 
Ps.-Jon.  adds  to  n:noS  nno  K,w  (Lev-  l6;  2?)  the  words 
ironan  K^an  prvT  to  pboia  ppenv..  which  is  against  the 
Halakah,  as  Buchler  (Die  Pricstcr  und  der  Cultus,  153) 
remarks.  The  Karaites  agree  with  Tradition.  See  Mibhar. 
aa  loc.  (28a)  : 

Ps.-Jon.  differs  from  Tradition,  Yoma  6,  6,  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Tycn  m  nto'i  (Lev.  16,  22)  in  ascribing  the 
death  of  the  goat  to  non-human  agency.  Geiger  (N.  S., 
V,  Heb.,  115)  believes  this  to  have  been  the  ancient  inter- 
pretation   (failing,    however,    to    indicate    the    reason    that 

"  Comp.  Brull,  Bet  Talmud,  I,  273.  Geiger  (/.  c.)  quotes  also  Ps.- 
Jon.  on  verses  3,  s>  7,  but  in  the  interpretation  of  v.  5,  Ps.-Jon.  is  in  full 
agreement  with  Tradition,  which  also  requires  niB  nsnc  to  be  by  a  priest 
(Brull,  /.  c,  271,  n.  5,  notwithstanding).  See  Parah  4,  4;  Tosefta,  ib.  4,  6; 
Maim.,  ptDHN  HIE,  3,  2;  4,  17.  The  view  that  p33  ht3'n»  (Ps.-Jon.  on 
verses  3,  7)  is  represented  also  in  Yoma  42a.  As  to  the  slaughtering  of 
sacrifices  in  general  if  it  need  be  by  a  priest,  see  Ritter,  pp.  no-11;  see 
also  Buchler,  Die  Priester  und  dcr  Cultus,  138  ff.,  and  p.  ioi,  n.  2,  and  p. 
I55'  n-   2"      See     Yoma     27a   and    Zebahim     32a;   see   also     Lev.     Rabba   22,     4: 

amc  jnam  ...  12102  mxn  12-22  nmox  Ssoiri  vnc  'e1?  Skj*d»i   'an  »an 

44  See  also  Geiger,  Urschrift,  173  (and  Buchler,  /.  c,  iS4)  as  to  Ps.-Jon. 
Ex.  29,  37;  30,  29;  against  which  see  the  just  remarks  of  Gronemann,  48, 
note. 


26  Karaite;  halakaii — revel 

might  have  caused  the  change  in  the  interpretation  of  this 
verse).  The  Karaite  interpretation  agrees  with  that  of  the 
Talmud.  See  Mibhar,  ad  loc.  {27b)  ...DtfD  }3^HJ>»1,  comp. 
also    min    -inn  ,  ad  loc. 

According  to  Tradition  nil:)  "1*1  J  ^Scr  (Lev.  7,  16- 
18)  are  eaten  only  two  days  and  the  night  between  (Sifra 
ad  loc;  Zebahim  5,  7;  Pesahim  3a;  Maimon.,  nmipn  ntryo, 
10,  6).  It  construes  "inuni  rnncoi  (v.  16)  so  that  bsw 
refers  to  mncn.  Ps.-Jon.  refers  7360  to  the  night  after 
the  second  day  so  that  D^cr  are  eaten  two  days  and  two 
nights  (comp.  Ps.-Jon.  to  Lev.  19,  6).  The  Karaites  are 
divided  on  this  question.  See  Mibhar,  ad  loc.  (lib): 
Dvn  mm  wan  inuni  nnx  nWn  d^  wb  d,1oxji"  .  mnoe 
..."imam  ay  ab  sp&«  b>«3  oy  p3*i  t'^k'h  dto  :  mB^  trx3  ^"^i'vi. 
But  see  min  ins,  arf.  loc.  (18&):  na*TJl  mj  ^k"  n;rn 
pn  Kin  ...nnx  n^in  onr  y»  xS  mW  'nun  ww  wb  D^as: 
vinx  bs?  n^bn  dj  pain  mnon  art"  ma  "■obtpa  DJ.  In  a 
fragment  of  a  commentary  on  Lev.  which  Schechter 
published  in  his  Saadyana,  144  ff.,  the  author  of  which 
Schechter  believes  to  be  the  famous  ninth  century  Karaite 
Daniel  al  Kumsi,  the  same  view  is  held  (ib.,  p.  146)  :45  p... 
...n?,bB>  i>»bi  mnoD  bsjo  nanai  ma. 

45  Aaron  b.  Elias,  however,  contradicts  himself.  See  pj,'  p ,  fol.  39c. 
1.  7  from  bottom:  WIN  nWl  D'O'  »3B>S  pSiJO  O'lAwi.  Philo,  as  is 
evident  from  the  third  reason  given  by  him  for  the  law  of  Lev.  19,  6  (II, 
245),  agrees  with  Ps.-Jon.  See  also  Geiger,  Nachg.  Schr.,  IV,  38;  Reifmann, 
Bet  Talmud,  I,  314.  Chwolson,  Das  letste  Passamahl  Christi,  35,  believes  this 
to  have  been  the  Sadducean  view;  comp.  ib.,  32,  34.  The  interpretation  of  Ps.- 
Jon.  seems  to  have  escaped  Chwolson.  Another  Karaite  view  is  found  in  the 
fragment  mentioned  in  the  text.  Daniel  says  that  the  words  D313  3'1j3»  »3  DIN 
]3*lp  (Lev.  1,  2)  excluded  Gentiles  from  bringing  any  sacrifices  to  be  offered  for 
them  in  the  Temple.  Other  Karaites  hold  the  same  view  (Mibhar,  Lev.  39a, 
and     ff]D3  m'U ,    ad    loc,    min  "IH3    620;   but   see    njH   3"jn    by   the    Karaite 


KARAITE   HALAKAH — REVEL  2"J 

Ps.-Jon.  interprets  D-DID  lS  H3T  X?l  (Deut.  \y,  16)  to 
mean  that  he  should  not  have  more  than  two  horses  (Tin? 
piDiD  pin  7j>  n"S  pJC'  kS  )  which  is  against  the  talmudic 
interpretation  that  the  King  is  not  to  keep  more  horses 
than  he  actually  necls  (Sifre,  ad  loc,  105b;  Sanhedrin  21a, 
comp.  Briill,  Bet  Talmud,  II,  25-26).  The  Karaites  agree 
with  the  talmudic  interpetation.  See  Mibhar,  ad  loc. 
(I4&)  :  W33nO  H3  X?X     :    D'DID  1?  PUT  X?V 

Tradition  interprets  Xinn  x^jn  noi  (Deut.  18,  19)  as 
death  by  strangulation  (Sanhedrin  10,  1  ;  Sifre,  ad  loc, 
1080).  Ps.-Jon.  translates  death  by  sword.46  The  Kar- 
aites agree  with  Tradition.  See  nmn  "im,  ad  loc.  (22a)  : 
nn  »3jjd  f»  xintr  "»  S?3'  dji  npe>  xn:  in?  :  Tp  "1B>K  x"3J.n  n,x 
pirn  DnL"?L"  nj.m  mr  nmay  db>3  xsjnoni  num." 

As  was  already  remarked  by  Jonathan  Eibeschiitz 
(□'Dim  Dmx  ,  9.  2)  Ps.-Jon.  in  his  translation  of  Deut,  24,  1 
S3H  '3  Dnp  pswn  nSD  nS  3in3'  requires  the  presence 
of  a  court  for  the  execution  of  a  bill  of  divorce.  The 
Karaites    agree    with    Tradition    (see    Baba    Batra    174b; 


Arakin  23a :  Bnjo  Kp  xrn  ,33  t'njon  bs  1EX ;  but  comp. 
D1KH3  '1  BTVB,  ad  /oc;  see  the  literature  in  L.  Low,  Ges. 
Sclir.,  Ill,  235-244)  against  Ps.-Jon.  Anan  requires  the 
presence  of  ten,  which  constitutes  a  court  according  to  the 
early  Karaites  (see  RBJ.,  XLV,  67;  69  note)  in  case  of 
marriage  (  :vb  0"nD  ed.  Harkavy,  p.  113)  but  not  for  a 
divorce    (/.  c,   p.    119).      See   also   Benjamin    Nahawendi, 

M.  Sultanski,  Goslow  1858,  118).  The  later  Samaritans  shared  this  view 
(Wreschner,  61-2).  This  Karaite  law  is  based  on  no  tradition;  see  Schiirer, 
Division    II,    Vol.    I    (Engl,    transit,    299    ft. 

46  Ps.-Jon.    interprets    MOV  in    Deut.    13,    6    also    by    NB"D2  ?Bpr»,    which 
is   against   the    Mishnah,    Sanhedrin    10,    1. 

47  Aaron  b.   Joseph    (Mibhar,   Deut.    15a)    believes  that  death   here  is     »T3 
D'EC  ,   basing    his  view   on   Jerem.    28,    16. 


28  KARAITE  HALAKAH REVEL 

J,D,:3  nsL"D,  6c,  11.  9-12,  and   py  p,   155&.     Elias  Bashjatzi 

Cn"'  'a,  dhm  y,  li-rbx  mix)  states :  pre  crrn  »ra  lrpnn  pbi 
ddiieo  -\21rt  n\-ri"  H3  T'33  [ojn] 

It  is,  however,  most  probable  that  in  many  instances  -a 
writ  of  divorce  would  be  given  in  the  presence  of  a  rva 
JH  to  insure  legality  and  publicity,  to  which  custom  Ps.- 
Jonathan's  xm  "n  Dip  may  be  due.  In  a  recently  discov- 
ered Assuan  papyrus  a  divorce  is  said  to  be  announced 
m]}2.  See  Jahrbuch  d.  judisch-liter arise hen  Gesellschaft, 
VII,  Frankfurt  a-M.   1910,  p.  378. 

Ps.-Jon.  (so  also  Fragment  Targum)  interprets  nxzn 
bnn  0*0*3  HVP  "WKlfian  bx  (Dent.  26,  3)  against  Tradition 
(Bikkurim  3,  12;  Sifre,  ad  loc;  so  also  Josephus,  IV,  8, 
22)  as  referring  to  the  high  priest  (  ^>v  H  xjm  nib  pby/l 
31  pnab  'Joo).  The  Karaites  agree  with  Tradition.  See 
Mibhar,  ad  loc,  23a.    So  also   min  "ira,48  ad  loc.  296). 

48  The  Karaites,  relying  on  Nehem.  10,  36,  contend  that  the  firstlings 
(D'llDS)  are  to  be  offered  from  all  kinds  of  earth  and  tree  fruits  (Mibhar 
and  min  "1J13  ,  /.  c).  According  to  Tradition  (Bikkurim,  1,  3)  they  are 
offered  only  from  the  "seven  kinds"  enumerated  in  Deut.  8,  8.  Philo,  II, 
298  states  that  they  are  brought  from  the  fruits  of  trees  (see  Werkes  Philos, 
II,  168,  n.  2;  but  see  Philo,  II,  391);  comp.  also  Book  of  Jubilees  21,  10  and 
Josephus  Ant.   IV,   8,  22. 


KARAITE    IIAI.AKAII — KKVKl,  29 

1  will  now  turn  to  the  differences  known  or  supposed 
to  have  existed  between  the  Sadducees  and  the  Pharisees 
and  examine  Karaite  halakah  on  these  disputed  points. 

The  interpretation  of  Lev.  16,  12-14  constituted  one 
of  the  earliest  differences  between  the  Pharisees  and  the 
Sadducees.  The  Sadducean  view  and  practice  was 
( Tosefta  Yoma  1,  7)  that  the  kindling  of  incense  in  the 
vessel  (v.  13)  was  to  take  place  before  the  high-priest 
entered  the  Holy  of  Holies,  maintaining  that  otherwise  the 
high-priest  when  entering  it  would  see  the  Ark, — which 
contravenes  msDn  bv  n*OK  pin  "D  (v.  2)."  The  Pharisaic 
ruling  and  practice  was  that  the  incense  is  to  be  put  on 
the  coals  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  itself  (T.  K.  Ahare  Mot, 
3;  Tosefta  Yoma  1,  7;  Yoma  196;  53a;  p.  ib.,  1,  5  (39a)). 
The  Karaites  agree  with  the  Pharisaic  interpretation  of 
these  verses.  See  Mibhar,  ad  loc.  (27a)  :  inx :  '1:1  na  jn:i 
mean  pint  xbv  to  idjdh  ;  so  also  min   -im,  ad  loc.  (42b) : 


mnon  bv  nanu  lDjami  tnx  ,Lo  h*  bv  hd^do  mitapp  nsoja. 

The   authenticity   of    Megillat   Taanit    (ed.    Neubauer, 
ch.    4),    according    to    which    the    interpretation    of   npvi 


•Continued    from    New    Series,   vol.    II,    517    ff. 

*9  See  rmn  "lf")2.  Lev.  41b,  for  the  anti-Sudducean  interpretation  of  this 
verse:  miEpn  J3J»  pi  Pl«"l«  NSt?  DJJBT1  J'Kl.  Comp.  Geiger,  Jiid.  Zeitschrift, 
II,   29    ff.,   and   Oppenheim,   Bet   Talmud  IV,   269    ff. 


3°  KARAITE   HALAKAH — REVEL 

WS3  (Deut.  25,  9)  constituted  a  difference  between  the 
Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees,  is  admitted  by  Geiger 
(Jildische  Zeitschrift,  II,  28;  comp.  ib.,  95).  The  latter  in 
their  adherence  to  the  letter  of  the  Law  required  the  HDT 
to  spit  in  his  face  (e>D»)  while  the  Pharisees  in  case  of 
halisah  caused  her  to  spit  before  him  (Yebamot  106&).  The 
Karaites  agree  with  the  Pharisees  in  the  interpretation  of 
nsa  np>Ti.M  See  Mibhar,  ad  he.  (22a)  pwS3  v:aa  np-iO 
bvm  'JSa  V'v|  D3>n  1:12 .     Comp.  ?idd  n*VB .  ad  /or . 

The  responsibility  of  a  master  for  damage  caused  to 
others  by  his  servants  constituted,  as  already  recorded  in 
Mishnah  (Yadaim  4,  7),  an  issue  between  the  Pharisees 
and  Sadducees.  The  latter  applied  the  law  of  Ex.  21,  35 
also  to  damage  done  by  one's  servants.  The  Karaites  agree 
with  the  Pharisees  and  reason  like  them.  See  py  p 
(i8or):  Dn  ba«  pe6e>»  Dnnx  Dip-n  -itrx  crx  m*»xi  -qj?  *pu 
...fHNn  ix  byan  jna^  p  irx  poiScm  ex**  nea  ban  ....DniDB 
laaS  irve>  ntrsxi  nyn  1S  fc"  lay.n  *a  -ne»n  <pm  nnyn  "pta  B»pnb  pxi 
D^o  xiw  onns  poo  tdd'1  iwko;  comp.  G.  Holscher, 
Dcr  Sadduzdismus  (Leipzig  1906),  30  ff. ;  Geiger,  Ur- 
schrift,   143   ff. 

The  Pharisees  and  the  Sadducees  differed  on  the  law 
of  inheritance.  According  to  Num.  27,  8  when  there  are 
sons  and  daughters,  the  sons  are  the  heirs.  But  if  the 
son  died  before  his  father,  the  son  leaving  a  daughter,  the 
Sadducees  held  that  the  daughter  shares  with  her  brother's 
daughter  the  inheritance.  The  Pharisees  held  that  the  son 
and  all  his  descendants,  male  or  female,  should  precede 
the  daughter  in  the  right    of    inheritance    (Meg.  Taanit    5, 

10  See  Rapoport.  DOK1  DlSc  nan  (Prag.  1861),  n  ff.;  Weiss,  I,  117, 
note  2.  Josephus  (Ant.  IV,  8,  23)  translates  with  the  Sadducees  V3B3 
literally.  Sep,  however,  A  nan  (Harkavy,  ri6):  -il'DMS  K91M.  Comp.  also 
Testament   of   Twelve  Patriarchs,  Zebulun,   .?,   4,    ft'. 


KARAITE    IIAI.AKAII — kKVKL  31 

(Neubauer,  II,    10)  ;  Tosefta  Yadaim  2,  20;  Baba  Batra 
1 15b- 1 1 6a;  p.  ib.,  8,  1)." 

The  Karaite  law  of  inheritance,  as  they  themselves 
confess  ( py  p,  165&),  is  confused,  and  difference  of  opin- 
ion exists  among  them  on  essential  points.  The  prominent 
ninth  century  Karaite,  Daniel  al  Kumsi,  held  that  the 
daughter  when  sons  are  left  receives  a  third  of  the  inherit- 
ance (Pinsker,  II,  85;  comp.  in^xmnK,  ioia).52  Joseph  b. 
Abraham  ha-Kohen  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  (laughter's 
right  to  inheritance  is  equal  to  the  son's  (ib.,  ioic;  ]iy  p 
16? (I)  ;  this,  he  reports  in  the  name  of  David  b.  Boaz,  was 
also  the  view  of  many  others.53    These  views  disagree  with 

61  See  V.  Aptowitzer,  Die  syrischen  Rechtsbiichcr  und  das  Mosaisch- 
Talmudischc  Recht.  Wien  1909,  82.  His  assertion  that  the  law  of  Timotheos 
quoted  there  is  Sadducean  is  mistaken.  The  equal  rights  of  a  daughter's 
son  and  another  daughter's  daughter  never  constituted  an  issue  between 
the    Pharisees    and    the    Sadducees. 

52  Wreschner,  41,  suggests  that  it  was  taken  by  some  of  the  Karaites  from 
the  Samaritans,  who  follow  the  Mohammedan  law  and  give  the  daughter,  when 
there  is  a  son,  a  third  of  the  inheritance.  The  Karaite  law:  ih  fNC  .3  nOO 
BHpon  nitron  Snjn  jnaS  Mil  ^KIJII  31"ip  (Benjamin  Nahawendi,  J'»»33  r.KCO  , 
2d:  so  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  369)  might  have  also  been  borrowed  from  the 
Samaritans  (see  Wreschner,  42).  For  a  similar  view,  see  Schechter,  Jewish 
Sectaries,  I,  p.  9,  lines  14-15.  Tradition  makes  no  provision  for  the  case 
of  a  man  dying  without  heirs  and  considers  it  impossible  (Sifre  to  Num. 
S,  8;  Baba  kamma  1090).  According  to  Philo  (II,  291)  the  tribe  inherits  his 
property. 

63  An  opinion  identical  with  that  of  Joseph  b.  Abraham  is  quoted  in 
p.  Baba  batra  8,  1  in  the  name  of  BMJ  '0311.  Aaron  b.  EHas  (PJ?  ]i,  166a) 
states  that  by  "many  others"  David  b.  Boaz  meant  the  Sadducees  and  reads 
in  Baba  batra  1 1 56  iS  pyOIP  px  ^81B»a  X'tr:  iS'EX  pfl  DJ?  n3  BHTl  "IClxn  ^3 
instead  of  J3n  na  Oy  na  C"vn  liSlxn  S3;  see  also  the  reading  in  Neubauer's 
edition  of  Megillat  Taanit  (/.  c);  comp.  Hoffmann,  ZfhB.,  IX  (1905),  135. 
For  the  view  of  Anan  on  nan  nt?TV,  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  256  (98b);  comp. 
Gratz,  Gesch.xch.te,  V4,  187;  D.  H.  Miiller,  Syrisch-romische  Rechtbsiicher  u. 
Hamurabi,    31. 

The   opinion    of    Wreschner,    39,    that    B'1.3    '!23n    refers    to    the    Samaritans 


32  KARAITE    HALAKAH — REVEL 

the  Sadducean  as  well  as  with  the  Pharisaic  practice. 
Those  Karaites  who  do  accept  the  traditional  view  that 
daughters  do  not  share  with  sons  in  inheritance, — and  this 
is  the  view  of  nearly  all  later  Karaites  (Hadassi,  Alph. 
252,  256;  py  p,  166a,  and  -im»  and  n-nn  -im  to  Num. 
27,  8) — agree  also  with  the  Pharisees  against  the  Sad- 
ducees, that  the  son's  children,  female  as  well  as  male,  are 
the  sole  heirs  even  when  the  deceased  has  left  daughters. 
See  Hadassi,  Alph.  252  and  256:  n«  Dmaym  ii>  p«  pi  nDKi 
D^o-Hp  p  bv  wkst  bai  nib  mip  p  urina":  imina  innbirrSm 
r\nb',  so  also  ippSx  mix  102 d:  nnn  jd  n»"np  pn  m  nr  "abi ...; 
so  also  min -im,  Num.  41&:  mpj  pm  *ot  pa  ,\2n  »mai ... 
nan  jo  pro-tip. 

Hadassi  (Alph.  97)  informs  us  that  the  Sadducees 
"absolutely  forbade  divorce."  Geiger  (Zeitschrift,  1836, 
p.  99)  doubted  the  authenticity  of  this  report.  Kirkisani 
reports  it  in  the  name  of  David  b.  Merwan  Almukames  (ed. 
Harkavy,  304,  1.  3;  305,  1.  12).  S.  Holdheim  in  his  1DXD 
m^xn  (Berlin  1861,  p.  43  ff.)  finds  support  for  this  asser- 
tion in  the  fact  that  the  Karaites,  who,  as  he  believes  with 
Geiger,  descend  from  Sadducees,  also  prohibit  divorce 
except  in  case  of  suspicion  of  adultery  in  the  wife,  and 
quotes  (p.  53,  note)  irr^x  miN.  Holdheim,  however,  mis- 
stated the  facts.  The  author  of  irrbx  mix  (96c)  as  well 
as  all  the  other  later  Karaites  (Hadassi,  Alph.  366  (141c)  ; 
imo  and  min  -iro  on  Deut.  24,  1 ;  Gan  Eden  154c?  and 
mnSo  L"nb  (A.  Neubauer,  Axis  d.  Peter sburgcr  Bibliothck, 
54)),  does  not  like  the  School  of  Shammai  (Gittincjoa)  take 
"im  rmy   (  Deut.  24,   1 )   to  mean  sexual  immorality,  but  an 

is    forced.      He    and    Aptowitzer    (JQR.,    XIX,  609)    overlooked    Shabbat    116b. 

For    the    expression   'jNIC'S  WVS   lS'EK ,     see  pSnfl ,    VIII,    78;  SxiCD  K'C: 

may    also    refer    to    R.    Gamaliel    II    who    was  the    supposed    litigant    (Shabbat 
n6fc). 


KARAITE   HALAKAII — REVEL  33 

"intolerable  thing"  as,  for  instance,  the  wife's  becoming 
(after  the  marriage)  deaf  or  blind  or  contracting  an  in- 
curable disease;  anything  of  such  a  nature  is  legitimate 
cause  for  divorce.  But  even  this  view  was  rather  an  inno- 
vation of  later  Karaites.  As  we  now  know,  according  to 
Anan,  marriage  may  be  dissolved  at  the  wish  of  either  of 
the  parties,  by  a  writ  of  divorce.  See  his  nWDfi  idd  (Hark- 
avy,  119) :  nny  n3  x*£  ^  rrm  ;n  xvon  x^  dk  rrm  xox  xpi 
ni33  rvb  am  xSi  xrvjp  »b<D  n3  nawn  rwya  xiel"  xS  *m  nan 

H»n  fl'3  K-3V  xH  p31  Xin  H3  '3X  xh  pa  n?  t^-130.54 

Benjamin  Nahawendi  (pD»J3  nwra,  56),  considered 
the  right  of  divorce  to  be  vested  in  the  husband  alone. 
Samuel  al  Magrebi  tells  us  of  the  following  three  opinions 
among  the  Karaites  as  to  the  husband's  right  of  divorce. 
He  says  (MS.  gyb)  :  is?nnn  <a  m  :  nai  nny  na  kvo  *a 
n  Nvon  x^  u»3in  nnnS  aie*  *3  ran  *a  one  innn  nra  o'oann 
nr  'a  nox  Dnci  —  nisoa  n^pn  x*n  '3  na  xvo  -icr*o  vrya 
xson  <a  i-xn  wd<  -rewD  mi-xa  trxn  kxd<  il-x  s3  ^3,  1DKDn 
'3SD  dm  mn  »am  ':2a  men  n<ir  ax  bnan  pxi  wya  in  ni-xn 
'x^n  touch  nr  on*  xs  ^  onci  mwi  in  mnrn  >izv  obiyn  onn 
nb  in  i5»  nof  [wn  nx]  'nxjtr  »jx  nox'  txo  onjna  '3  (rua 
nra  D»3in  <:»?  wu  nx  »rrm  dji  hjctj™  t6v  imxcn  nn»n 
awn. 


M  See  Harkavy  in  Gratz,  Geschichte,  V*  487.  This  view  of  Anan  seems 
to  have  escaped  Poznanski,  ZfhB.,  XI  O907),  72.  It  is  possible  that  Anan 
in  this  law  raised  to  the  dignity  of  a  biblical  law  the  nTTOB  Tipn  enacted 
about  a  century  before  Anan.  See  Sherira  Caon,  Epistle,  ed.  Neubauer, 
35,  1.  11;  id.,  HTUJ  man,  Resp.  140;  comp.  Gratz,  V*.  129-130;  Weiss,  Dor. 
IV,  5,  9,  37;  A.  Schwarz,  Moses  b.  Maimon,  Leipzig  1908,  342-345.  Hadassi 
(Alph.  335)  stands  alone  in  his  opinion  that  }»BTTp  ^nnh  DIB  is  not  suffici- 
ent cause  for  divorce.  For  the  Samaritan  interpretation  of  IDT  mij,"  comp. 
MGWJ.,  LIV  (1910),  433;  Philo  and  Josephus  agree  with  the  view  of  Beth 
Hillel     (Ritter,    70,    n.    1). 


34  KARAITE    IIALAKAI1 — REVEL 

The  practice  of  the  Karaites  of  his  day  thus  coincided 
with  the  opinion  of  R.  Akiba55  (Gittin  90a)  :  mnx  KSO  l^BK 

The  preparation  of  the  Red  Heifer  was,  according  to 
Num.  19,  9,  to  be  done  by  one  ceremonially  clean:  trs  qDKl 
-»riD.  The  interpretation  of  "lino  trx  constituted  one  of  the 
essential  differences  between  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees. 
The  Pharisees  considered  the  unclean  man  who  has  bathed 
in  the  day  time,  and  awaits  sunset,  in  accordance  with 
Lev.  22,  7,  to  be  "line  and  eligible  to  prepare  the  ashes 
of  the  Red  Heifer.    The  Sadducees  considered  him  unclean 

55  Still  more  erroneous  is  the  assertion  of  Holdheim  (/.  C,  57  #■).  that 
the  Karaites  considering  the  marital  bond  similar  to  that  of  God  and  Israel 
allow  the  husband  to  forgive  and  take  back  an  adulterous  wife,  while 
Tradition  demands  the  dissolution  of  the  marriage  by  a  writ  of  divorce.  The 
reverse  is  true.  According  to  the  Karaite  law,  even  the  nDliN  is  considered 
defiled  and  forbidden  to  her  husband  whereas  the  talmudic  law  requires 
divorce  only  in  case  the  husband  be  a  priest  (Ketubbot  51  b;  the  reason  ot 
the  opinion  of  SsiOtSn  H12X  (/.  c.)  is  pSia  HB1D  HOC  ;  for  Ps.-Jon.  on  Deut. 
22  26-  80^3  i"!'310  Ftt'l'tSB'  X13:i  xSx,  see  Chayes,  PI3»3  »108,  9;  comp. 
.         ^^  »1J?B>,    IV,     4,     4)-       See    Benjamin    Nahawendi     (|'0<J3   HNtt'O    5a): 

/3tr  rnnlDN  ntya  Si?  Sax.  ntrnso  bw  ioa  nan  noiasi  »»n  b»8  n»»  dni 

nSDtiin   "itt'K  nn«;    so    also    Hadassi,    Alph.    329:  HD138   p3  1108  }?"3  'S'SWO 

rhv2  Sy  miD«  nniEQ  pa;  comp.  also  Alph.  364  (135&);  PP  P  '52*;  155a; 

irvS8  mi8,  936;  niaSa  tt'iaS,  47-  Jepheth  b.  AH  held  that  in  case 
of  defilement  no  writ  of  divorce  is  necessary;  for  the  marriage  is 
ipso  facto  dissolved  (pj?  ]S,  1 5  5"  > :  but  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  5.  lett.  p. 
Holdheim  (/.  c,  112)  contends  that  the  Sadducees  did  not  consider  a  captive 
frPiatP)  even  when  Jflb  HC'X  defiled.  Yet  the  Karaites  hold  that  even  an 
i"P13t?  ^818"  HCN  is  forbidden  to  her  husband.  See  Hadassi,  Alph.  365 
(141(f).  Josephus  (Contra  A fionem  I,  7)  agrees  with  Tradition  (Ketubbot  27a). 
Holdheim  (/.  c,  53,  note)  states  that  while  the  Karaites,  consider  man  and 
woman  equal  in  their  spiritual  duties,  the  Mishnah  (Berakot  3,  2)  confines  the 
duty  of  prayer  to  man.  The  very  Mishnah  which  ho  quotes  states  that  women 
are    included    in    the    obligation    of    prayer. 


KARAITE   HAMKAII — REVEL  *S 

and  barred  him  from  assisting  in  the  preparation  of  it." 
This  issue  could  have  arisen  only  if  we  interpret  nuab  mm 
D'Da  rnm  any  in  Deut.  23,  12  to  mean  "from  the  time  that 
the  sun  begins  to  decline"  allowing  the  unclean  to  take  the 
ablution  after  midday,67  a  period  thus  intervening  between 
the  purification  bath  and  sunset,  during  which  he  was  con- 
sidered by  the  Pharisees  clean  and  suitable  to  prepare  the 
ms  na«. 

Most  of  the  Karaites,  however,  take  anynyab  to  mean 
the  last  part  of  the  day  and  assign  the  ablution  to  the  hour 
which  immediately  precedes  sunset,  see  Harkavy,  nw»n  13D 
pyb,  143-  n.  95  see  also  nmn  nna,  ad  he.  (27a)  :  nuab  mm 
nyp  pyany  nbapn  <bya.nyna  «b  ipa  nuab  pi  anyb  tod  :  any 
dv  bias  nn  m\n  Sa  pmb  nxn  mm  anyn  njs^t".  See  i&.,  Lev. 
39^;  Hadassi,  Alph.  295  (hoc).  So  also  lmbx  mnx,  y\d: 
21m  ipsa  anyb  iidd  nv.nb  -p*  "a  D'Dann  now  ran  nnntsai 
any  nuap  raann  rural  ...  D^oa  pnm  any  nuab  mm  np  byaa 
Tod  nrnb  mns  D<oa  abia  D\s*oon  nnntaenpDa  fab  ...  anyb  hod 
....  anyb-  So  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (MS.,  191&  ff.)  :  nyi 
anyn  ainpa  Kin  *a  anbi?  noxi  ...  ia  raann  labnn.n  any  nua 
Dnnn  vm  by  ewno  oyo  nxtrn  xvn  xoon  t'mnt-  my^a  mm 
D<oa  pnm  none  tnx  any.n  ny  xooi  ainan  10x03.  Comp.  also 
the  anti-Karaite  ordinance  of  Maimonides  (ed.  Friedlaender, 
MGWJ.,  1909,  476) :  jia<  [n  aaobx  mina  *amnn  |d  nnjei 
D^nsbM  nxpnyx  3Dna  niB*DB>n  pa;  see  also  py  p  no&,  c,  d; 
115  c,  d;  comp.  also  Sahl  b.  Masliah,  Pinsker,  II, 
28.      According    to    them,    such    state    of    uncleanness    as 


66  Parah  3,  7!  Tosefta,  ib.,  3,  8;  Yoma  2a  and  parallels;  comp.  Gratz. 
Ill4,  447  ff.  G.  Holscher,  Der  Sadduzaismus,  Leipzig  1906,  20-21  wholly 
misunderstood    this    controversy. 

07  Comp.  Geiger,  ZDMC,  XX,  567;  Maim.,  niKipB  Ti ,  i,  6,  and  V'aNI 
and   Oa3  ad   loc. 


36  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

DV  bl3D— one  who  has  bathed  (for  purification)  in  the  day 
time — does  not  exist  at  all;  the  Karaites  thus  differ  in  the 
question  of  DV  7QD  as  much  from  the  Sadducees  as  they 
do  from  the  Pharisees. 

The  law  of  false  witnesses  constituted  one  of  the 
earliest  differences  between  the  Pharisees  and  the  Sad- 
ducees. The  latter  restricted  the  application  of  Deut.  19. 
19  to  the  case  when  the  accused  has  already  been  executed 
in  consequence  of  their  false  testimony.  The  Pharisaic 
view  and  practice  were  that  false  witnesses  are  liable  to 
equal  punishment  after  the  judgment  had  been  passed  but 
not  carried  out  (Sifre,  ad  loc.,  ed.  Friedmann,  109b;  Mak- 
kot.  1,  6;  Tosefta  Sanhedrin  6.  6;  p.  ib.,  6,  3  and  parallels). 

Geiger  (Urschrift,  140)  and  Weiss  (I,  138)  consider 
apocryphal  the  report  of  the  Baraita  Makkot  $b  that  the 
Pharisees  did  not  apply  the  law  of  false  witnesses  in  case 
the  wrongly  accused  was  already  executed.  The  issue  be- 
tween the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  was,  according  to  them, 
the  case  where  the  testimony  was  found  to  be  false  before 
the  execution  of  the  alleged  offender.58 

Most  of  the  Karaite  exegetes  and  codifiers  agree  with 
the  Pharisees  in  this  disputed  point;  see  Mibhar,  ad  loc. 
(15b) :  pnn  -lortr-inx;  DontrxD  iS  hl'tticxi;  comp.  ^ddi-itu, 

88  Comp.  also  Pineles,  mm  Sc  rOTt,  172;  Friedmann,  Beth  Talmud,  V, 
233  ft".;  Herzfeld,  Geschichte,  III,  387;  Graetz,  IIP,  99.  The  Book  of 
Susannah  was  according  to  Brull,  Jahrbiicher,  III  (1877),  63  ff.  (comp.  also 
Hoffmann,  Magazin,  IV  (1877),  1 57  ff)  written  as  a  protest  against  this 
Sadducean  practice.  For  the  view  of  Philo  see  Ritter,  26,  n.  1.  Josephtu 
accepts  the  Pharisaic  view  (Weyl,  85).  For  the  Samaritans  see  Wreschner, 
Intro.,  p.  VIII,  note  5.  For  attempts  to  explain  the  talmudic  view  J'N  Ulfl 
D'Jina  (see  Geiger,  Urschrift,  140,  note),  which  is  also  the  view  of 
the  Karaite  Aaron  b.  Joseph  (Mibhar,  Deut.  16a)  see  Magasin,  XX 
(1893),  88  ff.;  Rapoport,  n?2Kl  DlSt?  nil,  p.  7-  L.  Low,  Ges.  Sch.,  I,  284, 
is    to    be    corrected    accordingly. 


KARAITE    I1ALAKAII — REV'KL  37 

ad  loc.  (let.  95)  :  nyion  anna  vh  D^DOITH  nnwtf  *fi  Sy  *1N1  ••• 
niB>yb  iddt  -itrxa  T'n  to  tvayn  ■tap'1;  comp.  py  ja,  194c/ :  nox  pi 
:  pnn  n»aaB>  inx  x^x  panna  pocmn  onyn  pK  moan  'Sya 
onoiN  dhi  pL"  S^  xS  nnois  pxipn  '»am  pinna p«  linn  panna  inn  xb 
....  pnn  jo  xaS  pan  ps  ;  comp.  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  357,  and 

nnm  nnra,  Deut.  26a,  1.  1 : Kin  aim  nox  rrn  dke>  *pw; 

see,  however,  pv  \i  177c :  i^axi  D^n  Da'X  anna  xS  axi  ... 
anna  x^  pnyi  lan  pDsaty. 

The  two  daily  burnt  offerings  (TDn  nSy)  being  pubic 
offerings,  had  to  be  provided  at  the  expense  of  the  public, 
from  the  nat^n  norm  of  the  half-shekel  tax  (Shekalim  4,  1 ; 
Sifre  I,  142). 5D  The  Sadducees  claimed  (basing  it  on  the 
singular  form  nsryn  nnx  6J>aan  nx  in  Num.  28,  4)  that  the 
daily  burnt  offerings  may  be  offered  by  individuals. 
Menahot  65a  and  Megillat  Taanit,  11  (Neubauer,  Mediaeval 
Jewish  Chronicles,  II.  3  )  :  DTcn  n^aia  onnix  D^pmv  vntJ> 
dv  d^'Sc  x-no  nn  ninac  *t\v  vpso  nn  nnx  nai"  jpsd  nr  tt  Sen; 
comp.  Geiger,   Urschrift,   136. 

The  Karaites,  in  agreement  with  the  Pharisees,  con- 
sider the  perpetual  offering  a  public  sacrifice  to  be  offered  at. 
the  expense  of  the  people,  though  they  hold  that,  in  all 
duties  incumbent  on  the  people  at  large,  if  an  individual 
anticipates  it,  the  duty  is  discharged.     See  Mibhar  to  Ex. 

89  So  also  Josephus,  Ant.  Ill,  10,  i  and  Contra  Ap.,  II,  6.  Philo  also 
considers  the  TOD  pip  a  public  sacrifice  (II,  239).  Comp.  M.  Zipser, 
Flavins  Josephus'  "Ueber  das  hohe  Alter  des  Jiidischen  Volkes  gegen 
Apion,"  Wien  1871,  113.  The  fact  that  King  Hezekiah  defrayed  the  expense 
of  the  TCn  (II  Chron.  31,  3;  comp.  Schiirer,  II,  I,  284,  Engl,  transl.)  is 
not  against  this  view,  as  even  according  to  Tradition  an  individual  is  allowed 
to  bring  the  TDn,   if  he  first  turns  it  over  to  the  people    (Rosh  hashanah   7a); 

see  Maim.,  enpon  ,[?3,  8,  y.  tea  Tn'  jniK  m:nntr  iia'sn  maanp  Ss  n« 

"llD'sS  DIDO't?  13^31  D'11?3,  comp.  ~\htih  HiCD,  ad  loc.  and  t?"*l  to  Parah  2,  3. 
This  escaped   Ratner,  hzVT\  1SD  in  honor  of  N.   Sokolow,  Warsaw  1904,   502- 


38  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

27,  20  (57a) :  btnw  ^3  noBJ  nrntry^  tnx  mp  dn  niven  in 
13  nm  rns»i  □,3d:.ti  r6iyn  »vjn  nbcrn  D'TDnn  pi.  Similarly 
to  Num.  19,  2;  comp.  spa  dtu  ,  ad  loc:    x"ni"  "E   ^y   f|X  ••• 

nnx  K"N  »t  by  nnxana  p^BD"1  nm  ^  pooo  rnw6  na^nno 
anain  *t  ixv  'a  Sxx"  ba  DnitDavm;  see  also  min  in  a,  Ex. 
956,  and  lrrbx  rmx,  ioifr. 

The  view  of  Geiger  (Jiidischc  Zcitschrift,  I,  24;  Nach- 
gclassene  Schr.,  V,  Heb.,  161  ;  ZDMG.,  XX,  560  and  else- 
where; comp.  Poznanski,  i?£/v  XLV,  63)  that  the  Sam- 
aritan interpretation  of  Deut.  25,  5  ff.,  which  was  also  held 
by  some  early  Karaites,  goes  back  to  the  Sadducees ,  cannot 
be  accepted.  The  Samaritans  took  mnnn  (v.  5)  to  be  an 
adjective,  referring  to  nnn  ncx  translating  it  ''the  outer 
wife,"  i.  e.  the  betrothed  who  had  not  as  yet  entered  her 
husband's  house,  and  restricted  the  law  of  levirate  marriage 
to  the  betrothed  woman  whose  husband  died  without  living 
issue  (KiddUshin  75^-760;  p.  Yebamot  1,  6  and  Gittin  1, 
4;  comp.  Frankel,  Vorstudien,  197,  note  b).  If  the  Sad- 
ducees, like  the  Samaritans,  would  have  applied  the  law 
of  yibbum  only  to  the  betrothed,  but  not  to  the  widowed 
wife,  marriage  would  have  been  prohibited  with  them,  as 
the  cause  of  the  exclusion  of  the  Samaritans  from  the 
Jewish  community  and  of  marriage  being  prohibited  with 
them,  was  that  they  referred  the  law  of  levirate  marriage  to 
the  betrothed  only.     See  Kiddushin  75b.80 

An  agreement  of  great  importance,  as  Geiger  thinks, 
between  the  Sadducees  and  the  Karaites  is  their  rejection 
of  the  device  known  as  'erub,  by  which  restraint  on  walk- 

60  Against  this  view  of  Geiger  see  also  L.  Low,  Gesammelte  Schriften. 
Ill,  162;  Geiger's  opinion  (Urschrift,  148)  that  many  of  the  Pharisees  were 
against  intermarriage  with  Sadducees  is  not  proved;  see,  to  the  contrary, 
N.  Krochmal.  |Ctn  "Dis:  miD,  Warsaw  1804,  65:  I..  Low,  /.  c,  160.  nSiap 
1JW"J  nOKO   ed.    Poznanski    I.  87,   11.   3,  end   and   84,   n.    i. 


KARAITE    HALAKAH — KKVKI,  39 

ing  and  carrying  on  the  sabbath  is  lightened.01  Geiger 
sees  in  the  institution  of  'erub  a  result  of  the  Pharisaic 
desire  to  imitate  the  priestly  sacerdotal  meals  eaten  in  nwan. 
The  sacrificial  meals  constituted  a  religious  act.  To  afford 
the  priests  an  opportunity  to  assemble  for  such  repasts, 
which  were  usually  held  on  holidays  and  sabbath,  the  regu- 
lations concerning  walking  distances  and  carrying  food 
from  one  precinct  to  another  (r\wh  rriBnD)  were  disre- 
garded. The  Pharisees  also  instituted  common  repasts 
(originally  of  companies  of  ten  peoople,  as  in  the  eating  of 
the  Paschal  Lamb).  These  meals,  though  of  profane  food, 
pbin,  were  eaten  BHpn  mno  bv  and  in  connection  with  them 
were  practised  rites  and  observances  usually  associated  with 
sacerdotal  meals.  To  facilitate  such  gatherings,  i.  e.  par- 
ticipation by  those  who  lived  outside  the  city  limits  in  such 
consecrated  meals  (usually  held  on  holy  days),  they  devised 
the  fiction  of  'crab,  through  which  members  could  come 
from  distances  and  food  be  carried  from  one  precinct  to 
another  on  sabbath.  The  Sadducees  opposed  this  device 
(Erubin  6,  2;  ib.,  68b).  The  rejection  of  this  "evasion  law" 
by  the  Samaritans  (Erubin  316)  and  the  Karaites  (Hadassi, 
Alphabeta  182,  183,  242,  see  also  authors  quoted  below)  thus 
goes  back  to  their  common  source — the  Sadducees.  This 
hypothesis  of  Geiger  is  due  to  misunderstanding  the  above 
quoted  Mishnah.  As  has  been  shown  by  I.  Halevy  in  his 
Dorot  Ha  Rishonim  (ic,  pp.  436  ff. ;  so  also  Weiss,  Dor, 
I,  itq),02  the  Sadducees  are  mentioned  there  as  mio  irxL"  »D 

61  Jiid.  Zeitschr.,  II,  24,  Nachg.  Schriften,  III,  290:  V,  Heb.,  145  ff.  and 
elsewhere.  Against  the  view  of  Geiger  concerning  nni2n  of  ten  people  to 
which  he  ascribes  much  importance  (see  references  above  and  Urschrift,  121 
ff.;  Nachg.  Schr.,  IV,  107),  see  A.  Buchler,  Der  Galilaische  Amhaares,  208, 
n.    2;    comp.    also,   for   Ps.-Jon.   on    Exod.    12,   4,   Frankel,   MGWJ.,    1846,    114. 

62  i"b  pan<jO  natra  riNSin  *iid»n  its»mm  aivya  [n'pmn]  dhio  vn  th 

(k"0.      Weiss    overlooked,    however,    Horayot    40;    comp.    also    Geiger    himself. 


40  KARAITE   HALAKAH REVEL 

3Wjn ,  which  means  "one  who  does  not  believe  in  the  device 
of  'erub,"  i.  e.  one  who  ignores  as  invalid  the  rabbinic 
injunctions  against  DinnS  )"in  nsw  and  "ivni  nxvin  on  sab- 
bath. Thus,  while  the  Sadducees  did  not  consider  PlK^V1  and 
nxvin  forbidden,  the  Karaites  prohibit  them  and  reject  the 
"evasion  law"  of  'erub  (Hadassi,  /.  c,  and  authors  quoted 
below).  The  early  Karaites  Anan,63  Benjamin  Nahawendi 
(}"\y  p,  31a  ff.)  and  Sahl  b.  Masliah  (/.  c.  and  in^x  rmx, 
29c)  interpreting  Ex.  16,  29b  rnnn  l'"X  13E>  literally,  for- 
bade" leaving  the  house  on  sabbath  save  for  physical  needs 

Urschrift,  1478;  Nachg.  Schr.,  V,  Heb.,  147,  11.  5  ff.  This  is  also  the 
meaning  of  Sn»JD  miO  13<NC  '13  in  Erubin  31ft  (concerning  the  Samari- 
tans). See  Niddah  570  and  Rashi,  ad  loc,  s.  v.  "WN7;  see  also  Wreschner, 
15;  comp.  S.  Hanover,  Das  Festgesetz  d.  Samaritaner  nach  Ibrahim  ibn 
Jakiib,  Berlin  1904,  21.  For  the  Sadducees,  comp.  also  Schurer,  Div.  II, 
vol.    II    (Engl,    transl.),    37,    n.    102. 

83  See  p;*  p,  31b;  1PP7N  miN ,  29c;  comp.  also  Harkavy,  pJ,'S  Qn"D, 
129,  n.  1;  139,  n.  3.  This  is  also  the  view  of  Hadassi;  see  Alph.  144  (54c) 
and  247  (94(f).  Some  Karaites  forbade,  like  the  later  Samaritans  (Wresch- 
ner, 15),  leaving  the  house  on  sabbath  even  for  physical  need  or  a  religious 
object;  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  144.  See  also  Reifmann,  Beth  Talmud,  I,  385: 
Harkavy,    Magasin,    VI     (1879),    121. 

64  The  later  Karaites,  including  Levi  b.  Jepheth  ha-Levi,  Joshua  b. 
Judah,  Samuel  al-Magrabi,  and  Aaron  b.  EHas,  accepted  the  rabbinic  (see 
Mekilta  to  Exod.  16,  29;  Alfasi  and  Asheri  to  Erubin  1,  end;  Tosafot  ib„ 
17b,  s.  v.  IN? ;  Maim.,  nit?,  27,  1)  restriction  of  the  sabbath  way  to  two 
thousand  yards  outside  the  city  limits,  n2C  DinD,  making  thereof  a  biblical 
ordinance.      See  also  Joseph   al   Baser,   Pinsker,    II,   87. 

It  may  also  be  pointed  out  here  that  only  R.  Akiba,  the  champion  of 
the  New  Halakah  according  to  Geiger  {Urschrift,  133  ff.  and  elsewhere), 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  restriction  of  HON  D'fiSx  is  biblical  (Sotah  5,  3)! 
See  also    Schechter,  Jewish  Sectaries,   I,  p.    10,  1.   21;   p.    11,  1.   6. 

It  was  also  R.  Akiba,  the  antagonist  of  the  Sadducean-5o»iaM(aH 
halakah  according  to  Geiger,  who  held  the  Samaritans  to  be  genuine  con- 
verts, HI3N  1"1J  (Kiddushin  75b;  comp.  Frankel,  Binfluss,  24s),  while  R. 
Eliezer  and  R.  Ishmael  who,  according  to  this  view,  partly  adhered  to  the 
Sadducean-Samaritan  halakah,  held  the  Samaritans  to  be  only  lion-converts, 
r\V\H  »1J|;    see    Kiddushin,    /.    c;    Shebiit   8,    10;   p.   ib.,  and   HCS  '3D    ad  loc. 


KARAITE    HALAKAH  —  KKYKl.  4-1 

or  some   religious  object.88 

Geiger   (Jiid.  Zeitschr.,  II   (1863),  43  ff.)   holds  that 
the  Sadducees  prohibited  the  sacrifice  of  the  Paschal  Lamb 
(nDD    |mp)    on   sabbath.     Derenbourg    (Orientalia,   I,    184 
ff.),  Holdheim  (rw«m»K»,  160  ff.),  Chwolson  (Das  letzte 
Passamahl  Christi,  Leipzig   1908,  28  ff.,   140,   161 ;  comp. 
Bacher,  JQR.,  VI,  680  ff.  and  RBJ.,  XLV,  176  ff.)  claim 
that  the  similar  view  held  by  Anan  and  some  other  early 
Karaites   goes    back   to    the    Sadducees.     See   against  this 
view  A.  Schwarz,  Die  Controversen  der  Schammaiten  und 
Hillclitcn,  I,  Wien  1893,  p.  17,  note.    It  may  also  be  pointed  * 
out    that    it    is    hardly    probable    that    the    Sadducees    dis- 
tinguished, as  Geiger  (/.  c.)   and  Chwolson   (/.  c,  21  ;  29, 
n.    2;    43,    140)    claim,    between    the    "perpetual    offering" 
(Ton  \2ip)   as  a  public  offering   (lia*  jmp),  and  the  ]2~\p 
nDD  as  a  private  offering  (Trv  \2ip),  since,  according  to  the 
Sadducees  themselves,  the  TOJ1  }2~\p  was  also  to  be  offered 
by   an   individual.      See  Menahot  65a;  comp.   Geiger,    Ur- 
schrift    136,    and   above.      Moreover,   many    early   Karaite 
authorities    agree    with    Tradition  that  the    nDD  }2~\p  takes 
precedence  over  the    sabbath.     So    Benjamin    Nahawendi 
(pybcnD,   153;  comp.  also  the  views  of  Daniel  al  Kumsi 
and    Jepheth    b.    Ali,    Harkavy,    /.  c).     So  also  Aaron  b. 
Joseph     (Mibhar,    Exod.    16b)  ;   Samuel  al  Magrabi    (ed. 

eB  The  Karaites  differ  among  themselves  also  on  the  source  of  TIDN 
nXSm  on  sabbath.  Jepheth  b.  Ali  (Pinsker,  II,  21)  and  Joseph  al  Basir 
/in,t,x  j-n-!N,  2orf  ff.)  follow  Tradition  and  consider  it  to  be  a  rOSOO  and 
therefore  forbidden.  Kirkisani  thinks  that  carrying  is  not  nD«So  and 
its  prohibition  is  traditional  and  attested  by  Jerem.  17,  22  ( pJJ  ]3  ,  26b; 
conn,  also  the  views  of  Joshua  b.  Judah  and  of  Aaron  b.  EHas,  HJ?  ]i, 
I.  <-.).  Levi  b.  Jepheth  stands  alone  in  his  opinion  that  the  carrying  of 
light    things    is    not    forbidden    OPi^X    miK,    29c). 


42  KARAITE    1 1  ALA  K  AH RKVI'.I. 

Junowicz,  Fast-und  Fcstgcsetse  d.  Karaer,  Berlin  1904,  6)  ; 
Elias  Bashyazi   (irrSx  miK,  riDS 'y,  ch.  8). 

Geiger  {Nachgel.  Schriftcn,  III,  315;  V,  Heb.,  149  ff. ; 
ZDMG.,  XVI,  717  ff.;  comp.  Cohn,  ZDMG.,  XLVII,  678) 
holds  that  the  Karaite  view  that  nbllJ  ~ny,  like  rtaj  ~W2, 
communicates  uncleanness  goes  back  to  Sadducean  Tradi- 
tion. It  escaped  Geiger  that  the  earliest  Karaites,  the 
Ananites,  were  of  the  opinion  that  no  separate  part  of  the 
carcass  is  capable  of  communicating  uncleanness.  See 
lrr^N  mnx,  nxoin  'y,  beg. :  n^a;n  thpb>  bv  ipSnj  codi-iii  D30K 
d:cx  non  fiun  bba  ^y  *ioxn  bbsa  r6:uB>  D"SyiT  om  nos  nno 
inx  -ax  my  dx  nnyn  *e£  nam  —  nSm  sop"1  xS  ncn  'pbn 
ribi:  xi pn  xS  nonino.  So  also  py  p,  99Z?,  end;  comp.  also 
JQR.,  XIX,  151,  1.  11 ;  for  Anan's  opinion  see  also  Jacob  b. 
Reuben  (Pinsker,  II,  84);  Harkavy,  pyb  »"riD  59;  153, 
n.  12;  Schechter,  Jewish  Sectaries,  II,  23;  comp.  also  i?£/., 
XLV,  56,  n.  4.  See  also  Geiger,  Urschrift,  135,  that  the 
Boethusians  allowed  nimoi  p^Bfl  D""i3D  to  be  written  on 
HXOD  nom  ~ny  which  proves  their  agreement  with  Tradi- 
tion that  rnnJ  "liy  is  not  xnoD .  Geiger's  interpretation  of 
Shabbat  1080  (A\  S.,  V,  Heb.,  151)  is  forced;  comp. 
also  Schorr,  pbnn,  IV,  33. 

The  view  of  Geiger  (Jiid.  Zeitschr,  I,  51 ;  II,  27;  N.  S., 
Ill,  316;  V,  Heb.,  138  ff. ;  163  ff.)  that  the  Samaritan  and 
Karaite  interpretation  of  Lev.  12,  4,  5  (mntt"'^)  goes  back 
to  the  Sadducees  is  not  proved.  See  Wreschner,  /.  c.,  38, 
in  favor  of  whose  view  it  may  be  pointed  out  that  the 
Book  of  Jubilees  (3,  13)  seems  to  agree  with  Tradition  that 
a  woman  during  nine  '•O'1  is  excluded  only  from  L'Hpn  n*03 
and    D»BHp  nbpK;  see  also  Schwarz,  /.  c.,  94  ff. 

The  only  view  common  to  the  Boethusians  (a  latter- 
day  Sadduceeism)  and  the  Karaites  is  the  interpretation  of 


KARAITE    UAI.AKAII REVEL  43 

j-Ql'ti  mnDO  and  the  time  of  the  Feast  of  Weeks.  The 
Feast  of  Weeks  is,  according  to  Lev.  23,  15-16,  to  be 
observed  on  the  fiftieth  clay  after  the  waving  of  the  sheaf. 
The  "wave-sheaf,"  1»iy,  is  to  be  offered  "on  the  morrow 
after  the  sabbath"  jnnn  i»iy  naiWl  mnoo.  Tradition  inter- 
prets rocrn  mnoo  "from  the  day  after  the  holy  convocation," 
i.  e.  from  Nisan  the  sixteenth.  The  Boethusians  interpreted 
rOB>n  mnon  to  mean  the  day  after  the  weekly  sabbath  that 
occurs  during  the  feast  of  the  unleavened  bread,  so  that 
Pentecost  is  celebrated  always  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 
(Menahot  650;  Megillat  Taanit  1,  2;  Sifra  on  Lev.  23,  15 
and  parallels).  This  is  also  the  Samaritan66  and  Karaite67 
interpretation  of   D3ETI  rnneo. 

But  to  adduce  this  Karaite  view  as  evidence  of  the 
Karaite  descent  from  the  Sadducees  is  hardly  justifiable. 
As  Geiger  himself  (Urschrift,  138-139);  Wellhausen  (Die 
Pharisaer  und  die  Sadducaer,  59  ff.)  ;  Schiirer  (II,  334)  ; 
Poznanski  (Abraham  Geiger,  Leben  u  Lcbenswerk,  365) 
pointed  out,  this  Boethusian  interpretation  of  rOETi  rnnoo 
does  not  go  back  to  Sadducean  tradition  but  originated  in 
the  animosity  of  the  Boethusian  priests-aristocrats  against 
the  Pharisees  after  having  been  deprived  by  them  of  their 

68  See  Wreschner,  Intr.,  XXIII;  S.  Hanover,  Das  Festgesets  der 
Samaritaner  nach  Ibrahim  ibn  Ja'kub,  Berlin  1904,  text,  p.  VII;  comp.  ib., 
62-63;  Geiger,  Nachg.  Schr.,  Ill,  294-296.  The  Samaritans  and  the  Karaites 
differ,  however,  in  the  following  essential  question,  namely,  when  to  count 
if  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan  occurs  on  Sunday.  The  Karaites  begin  on  it  to 
count  the  seven  weeks.  The  Samaritans  would  begin  counting  on  the  first 
of  the  next  week  and  thus  offer  the  "IQ1J?  post  festum.  See  Geiger,  /.  c, 
296;  Hoffmann,  Leviticus,  II,  164.  For  the  Falashas,  see  A.  Epstein,  Eldad 
ha-Dani,    154   ff.;   id.,   REJ.,   XXII    (1891),    13   ff. 

87  See  on  it  lastly  Poznanski,  Gedenkb.  zur  Erin,  an  D.  Kaufmann,  173 
ff.  Some  Karaites  trace  their  interpretation  of  nSCTI  JlinCC  to  R.  Phinehas 
b.  Jair.  See  Pinsker,  II,  16-7;  comp.  Frankl,  MGIVJ.,  1876,  115  ff.: 
Epstein,     Eldad    ha-Dani.     158,     note. 


44  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

prerogative  to  regulate  the  calendar  and  was  never  carried 
out  in  practice. 

The  only  agreement  between  the  Sadducees  and  the 
Karaites  known  to  us  is  their  rejection  of  "water  libation,"1 
D"Dn  iiD3,  on  the  Feast  of  the  Tabernacles.68  See  Jefeth  b. 
Ali  (Pinsker,  II,  23) :  n-jsa  «b  D-aron  ncrv  mv  &6  nn^n  -pD3 
imn  Kin  noso  bv  lJFDin  D"on  -pDJ  rnvon  onoiKPi  :  nxim  ab 
...1131  N*b  'n  "1B>K;  see  also  Mibhar,  Num.  28b,  and  v\02  rvro, 
ad  /oc. 

Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  in  all  the  differences  between 
the  Sadducees  and  Pharisees  recorded  in  Talmud  and 
Megillat  Taanit  the  Karaite  halakah  (as  far  as  Karaite 
opinion  is  known  to  us),  with  the  exception  of  men  mnoo 
and  D^n  "11  d  J  ,  either  agrees  with  the  Pharisees  against  the 
Sadducees,  or  is  in  itself  undetermined  by  reason  of  di- 
vergent views  among  the  Karaites  themselves.69 

The  mention  by  the  Karaites  Kirkisani  and  Hassan  b. 
Mashiah  of  a  work  (or  works)  composed  by  Zadok  the 
founder  of  the  Sadducean  party,  is  considered  by  many 
scholars70  proof  of  some  relation  existing  between  Sad- 
duceeism  and  Karaism. 

Schechter  has  established  close  relation  of  "Fragments 
of  a  Z  ado  kite  work"  discovered  and  published  by  him  (Jew- 
ish    Sectaries,     Cambridge     1910,    vol.    I.)    with    the  2xro 

68  Sukkah  48b;  Yoma  26b;  comp.  Maim.  Commentary  on  Sukkah  4,  9. 
See   on    it    lastly    Feuchtwang,    MGWJ.,    191 1,    49    ff. 

'"  See  also  Gratz,  V'4,  495.  This  examination  of  the  relation  of  the 
Karaite  halakah  to  the  Sadducean  views  known  to  us  discloses  how  un- 
founded are  the  assertions  of  Weiss  (Dor,  IV,  85);  Neubauer  (Aus  der 
Petersburger  Bibliothck,  2);  Fiirst  (Geschichte  d.  Kar'derthums,  I,  13  ff.); 
Harkavy  (Gratz,  Geschichte  V4,  477  and  elsewhere);  Poznaiiski  (REJ.,  XLIV 
(1902),  173)  and  others  who  follow  Geiger,  that  the  Karaites  agree  with 
the    Sadducees    in    the    differences   between    the    latter    and    the    Pharisees. 

70  See  Harkavy,  /.  c,  776;  Poznanski,  RE  J.,  I.  c,  176-7 ;  V.  Aptowitzer, 
Die    Rechtsbiicher    der    nestorianischen    Patriarchen    u.    Hire    Qucllen,    8. 


KARAITE  HALAKAH —  REVEL  45 

rvpm'Sx  mentioned  by  the  above-named  tenth  century 
Karaites.  As  Schechter  himself  says :  "The  term  Zakokites 
naturally  suggests  the  Sadducees;  but  the  present  state  of 
knowledge  of  the  latter's  doctrines  and  practices  does  not 
offer  enough  points  of  resemblance  to  justify  the  identifica- 
tion of  them  with  our  sect"  (Intr.,  XXI).  However,  if 
these  fragments  do  contain  Sadducean  traditions  and  prac- 
tices," they  afford  no  support  of  the  Sadducean-Karaite 
theory,  but  rather  disclose  further  proof  that  in  seeking 
for  the  origin  of  Karaism  and  its  halakah  we  must  cut  adrift 
from  any  theory  that  would  link  it  with  Sadduceeism. 

One  of  the  two  main  and  specfic  accusations  of  this 
Sect  against  their  antagonists  is  polygamy  (p.  4,  11.  20  ft.) 
which  nearly  all  Karaites  allow  if  it  does  not  interfere  with 
the  husband's  duties  to  his  first  wife  and  is  not  "1VW  ™    See 

71  See  Israel  Levi,  REJ.,  1911,  162  ff.;  K.  Kohler,  American  Journal  of 
Theology  191 1,  432:  comp.,  however,  G.  F.  Moore,  Harvard  Theological  Re- 
view,  191 1,   358,   270,   and  Poznaiiski,   Jewish  Review,   September   191 1. 

The  suggestion  of  Bacher  (ZfhB.,  191 1,  19)  that  these  Zadokites  rep- 
resent a  group  of  Sadducean  priests  who,  not  long  before  the  destruction 
of  the  Temple,  in  consequence  of  the  victory  of  the  Pharisees,  left  Pales- 
tine, is  based  on  the  theory  of  Buchler-Chwolson  that  not  until  a  decade 
before  the  national  catastrophe  did  the  Pharisees  control  the  national  life 
of  the  people — a  theory  which  is  still  to  be  proved;  comp.  A.  Epstein, 
MGWJ.,  XL  (1896),  139-140.  Kohler  (/.  c,  43O  states  that  "The  Fragments 
of  a  Zadokite  Work"  discovered  by  Schechter  "strongly  confirms  the  theory 
of  Abraham  Geiger  as  to  the  relationship  of  Samaritanism  and  Karaism  to 
Sadduceeism"  and  that  'Professor  Schechter  has  made  it  highly  probable, 
if  not  certain,  that  the  Document  brought  to  light  by  him  formed  the  very 
source  of  Anan's  system,  which,  as  K'rkisani  relates,  was  founded  upon  the 
books  of  Zadok"  and:  "We  thus  possess  in  this  Document  the  connecting 
link  between  the  ancient  Sadducean  and  Samaritan  lore  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  Karaites  in  a  far  more  direct  form  than  Geiger  and  Harkavy  could 
expect"  (/.  C.j  432-3).  The  following  examination  of  the  halakah  contained 
in    this   Document    will    show    how   erroneous   these    assertions   are. 

72  Comp.  Lekah  Tob  to  Deut.  21,  15  referred  to  by  Schechter,  XVII,  n. 
16.  Gittelsohn,  Civil-Gesetze  tier  Karaer,  Berlin  1904,  11,  n.  q,  is  to  be 
corrected    accordingly. 


46  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

Harkavy,  ])yb  D"nD,  105,  115,  109,  127;  Hadassi  (Alph.  324 
(1190?);  comp.  also  Alph.  321-2,  365  (135b) );  Aaron  b. 
Joseph  (Mibhar,  Lev.  336)  ;  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (MS., 
214b);  Aaron  b.  Elias  (pj?  p,  146^  154b;  min  "ins,  Lev. 
49a)  ;  Elias  Bashyazi  (  i.tSn  mis4,  D^o.  ch.  5)  ;  Mordecai  b. 
Nisan  (niabD  Wlb,  46).  A  present  day  Karaite,  Samuel  b. 
Shemariah  Pigit,  Hazzan  in  Ekaterinoslav,  writes:  i^nd  ... 
px  "a  dSwd  riNT  now  sb  nn  ,wv'}  tib*  nnpb  iidx  n"y  lroan 
irain  ".""x  mxSob  cninnn  <a  Sy  o,%n  on  pn  ptsnj  uai  mn  ubsK 
mim  niDD  ike*  kmiwj  i«a  C^wcb"  *ma  man,  St.  Petersburg 
1894,  I,  176)  ;  comp.  also  Schechter,  /.  c,  p.  XIX,  n.  22. 

According  to  this  Sect  "Fish  may  be  eaten  only  if  while 
still  alive  they  have  been  split  open  and  drained  of  their 
blood"  (p.  12,  11.  13-14;  comp.  p.  LI,  n.  23),  not  requiring 
that  the  fish  be  caught  by  an  Israelite.  Anan  (JQR.,  XIX, 
143;  comp.  ib.,  138)  and  many  other  early  Karaites73 
(Hadassi,  Alph.  235  (89c?)  ;  Jacob  b.  Reuben  quoted  in 
5]D3  nvD  to  Mibhar;  Num.  iofr,  lett.  55)  held,  in  agreement 
with  the  Samaritans  (Wreschner,  51),  that  only  fish  caught 

Schechter  (pp.  XVII,  XIX,  XXXVI,  n.  3)  believes  that  this  Sect  pro- 
hibited divorce  and  regarded  a  second  marriage  during  the  life-time  of 
the  first  husband  or  wife,  even  after  divorce,  as  fornication  (comp.  JQR., 
191 1,  138).  This  view  is  as  foreign  to  the  Karaite  halakah  as  to  Tradition; 
see  above.  This  Sect  decries  also  the  Pharisaic  regulation  of  the 
calendar.  If  the  calendar  of  this  Sect  was  a  solar  one  (comp.  Schechter, 
XVI,  XX  and  Kohler,  /.  c,  420),  the  Karaites  differ  in  this  important  point 
from    this    Sect    as    much    as    the    Rabbanites. 

n  It  may  be  pointed  out  that  a  similar  view  is  quoted  in  Midrash 
(Gen.  r.,  7,  2  and  parallels)  in  the  name  of  Jacob  of  N'TISJ  1B3  who  seems 
to  have  been  suspected  of  some  filJ'D  (comp.  Eccl.  r.  7,  47;  TJOH  ,  vol  XIV, 
245).      The   later    Karaites    rejected    this   view.       See    min  1H2 ,     Num.     15b: 

nc^Dsntr  xS  anaon  21-1  *B3  D'ana  he'dn  rnoKa  :  b|DK*  D»n  'ai  Sd  nn  ch 
mj  ncDK  hSi  mtrao  hirw*  nc'Dx  nvnS  t*is  p  our  mamrwi  mpn[a]; 

so  also  *"iy  j.1  ,  tot/i;  comp.  also  Samuel  al-Magrabi,  /.  c.  The  requirement 
that  the  blood  be  drained'  from  the  fish  before  it  is  eaten  suggests,  as 
Schechter    p.    I.I,    n.    23,    points    out,    that    this    Sect    prohibited    the    eating    of 


KARA  III'.    HAI.AKAII      -UKVKI.  47 

by  an  Israelite  may  be  eaten.  Moreover,  "splitting  open  the 
fish  while  still  alive,"  which  is  required  by  this  Sect,  is 
expressly  forbidden  by  most  of  the  Karaites.  See  Samuel 
al  Magrabi,  ed.  M.  Lorge,  Die  Speisegesetze  dcr  Kar'der  von 
Samuel  el  Margrebi,  Berlin  1907,  21  ;  Hadassi,  Alph.  234 
(8c//)  ;  com]),  also  J  OR.,  XIX.  143.  beg.  l.T^N  miK,  nOTIC?  'V, 
ch.  23  ;  pnBK,  25. 

Schechter  (pp.  XVIII,  XL1X,  notes  16,  24,  LX)  point- 
ed out  several  agreements  between  the  Karaite  halakah  and 
that  of  this  Sect  in  the  details  of  sabbath-observance. 
Extreme  Sabbatarianism  is,  however,  a  general  sectarian 
propensity.  Moreover,  the  Karaites  differ  from  this  Sect 
in  the  following  laws  of  the  sabbath. 

According  to  this  Sect  (p.  n,  11.  16-17)  "^  anY  person 
falls  into  a  gathering  of  water  or  unto  a  place  of  ....  he 
shall  not  bring  him  up  by  a  ladder  or  a  cord  or  any  instru- 

the  blood  of  fish.  This  is  also  the  view  of  Daniel  al-Kumsi  (Kirkisani,  ed. 
Harkavy,  316).  So  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  234,  end  and  Aaron  b.  Elias  (PJ,' P, 
93c;  mil"!  TO,  Lev.  19a).  Comp.  Bacher,  MGIVJ.,  1874,  272.  Many  Ka- 
raites, however,  oppose  this  view.  See  Mibhar,  Lev.  12a,  and  BD3  JITE  •  "d 
loc,  left.  65;  Samuel  al  Magrabi,  /.  c,  16.  Kohler's  contention  (/.  c,  427) 
that  the  Book  of  Jubilees  agrees  on  this  point  with  Tradition  against  this 
Sect  is  not   proved;   see   Book  of  Jubilees,  6,    10;   7,   28. 

Many  Karaite  authorities  agree  with  the  law  of  this  Sect  (p.  i-\  11.  14-15) 
that  locusts  are  to  be  killed  in  water.  See  Hadassi,  Alph.  235  (89(f) ;  Jacob 
b.  Reuben  (ZftliB.,  IV,  73);  Samuel  al-Magrabi,  /.  c,  9,  21;  py  p,  101c; 
lH^K  mix,  nt3*n»  'y,  ch.  24.  Schechter  (XXIV,  LI,  n.  20)  believes  that 
this  Sect  considered  honey  to  be  Tin  JO  TX  and  therefore  prohibited  it. 
It  is,  however,  more  probable  that  D'limn  '7JJ?73  (p.  12,  1.  12)  refers,  as 
Schechter  himself  (/.  c.)  suggests,  to  the  particles  of  the  bees  which  are 
mixed  up  with  the  honey  and  is,  perhaps,  to  read  D'112in  '"7J10  .  See 
Asheri,  on  Aboda  Zarah,  686:  3«tn  'SjH  xSni  tt'mn  pSaiK  UN  1«*n  HOTI 
12  p3"11J?0  .  Anan  (Harkavy.  3)  and  the  later  Karaites  allowed  the  use  of 
honey  <  py  p,  gji,  93a).  It  is,  however,  doubtful  whether  this  was  also  the 
view  of  the  earlier  Karaites  many  of  whom  prohibited  even  eggs  as  Tin  JO  "I2N» 
see  Hadassi,  Alph.  23J  (89c)  and  Alph.  308  (114c).  The  view  of  Lesynsky 
(Die  Saddusaer,  Berlin  191 2,  40)  that  the  Sadducees  prohibited  honey  is 
untenable;    he   overlooked   Judg.    14,   8-9. 


48  KARAITE   HALAKAH REVEL 

ment."  (See  Schechter,  XLIX,  n.  39;  I.  Levi,  RE  J.,  I.  c. 
198,  n.  14;  Moore,  /.  c,  365;  Kohler,  /.  c,  425).  This  law 
is  against  the  Karaite  halakah  as  well  as  against  Tradition. 
The  Karaites  agree74  with  Tradition  (Shabbat  18,  3;  Yoma 
84/'  ft.;  Mekilta  on  Exod.  31,  14  and  parallels)  that  for 
the  saving  of  a  human  life  the  sabbath  is  to  be  desecrated. 
See  Hadassi,  Alph.  148;  179;  Mibhar,  Exod.  38a;  pV  p, 
34a;  irrbtf  nmu,  mtr  >y,  ch.  21;    jv-isn,  p.  9. 

This  Sect,  like  the  Book  of  Jubilees  (50,  12,  comp.  v. 
9)  ,  prohibited"  fasting  on  sabbath.  Most  of  the  Karaites, 
however,  allow  and  even  commend  fasting  on  the  sab- 
bath. See  Hadassi,  Alph.  150  (56c?)  ;  comp.  Alph.  244 
and  264.  So  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi,  ed.  Weisz,  Traktat 
iiber  den  Sabbat  bei  den  Kardem,  Pressburg  1907,  14; 
comp.  alsopy  |3,  36a;  Elias  Bashyazi  in  his  DISD  mJXand  in 
ln^s  mis,  ratr'y,  ch.  11,  but  see  JTnSK,  p.  8.  It  may  also 
be  pointed  out  that  the  two  most  important  Karaite  devia- 

74  Gratz  {Geschichtc,  V4,  186)  states  that  Anan  prohibited  medical  treat- 
ment on  the  sabbath.  I  do  not  know  his  authority  for  this  statement.  See 
Hadassi,  Alph.  301,  letters  X,  p  (112b)  and  Levi  b.  Jepheth  quoted  by 
Harkavy,  ^"^h  rilXOn  1BD,  132.  Anan  relying  on  Exod.  15,  26  prohibited 
altogether  the  use  of  medicine  and  of  physicians  (Kirkisani,  quoted  by 
Harkavy  in  Gratz,  V4,  487;  comp.  Hadassi,  Alph.  207  (820)).  It  is  only  in 
case  of  CE3  mpE  pED  that  some  Karaites  hold  that  it  is  not  T)2V  Hnn. 
See  Hadassi,  Alph.  179  and  Alph.  364  (135a)  and  Joseph  b.  Abraham 
quoted  in    pj?  ]i,  34,  and  in  W^M    miS,   MSC  '$,  ch.  2;  see,  however,  Maim., 

rav  'n,  2,  3. 

Aaron  b.  Joseph  (Mibhar,  Exod.  38a)  quotes  I  Sam.  ax,  7  as  proof  that 
P2C  Hnn  CE;  mp£  .  This  verse  is  adduced  also  in  Matthew  12,  4  and  in 
Yelamdenu     (Yalkut,    II,    30)    in    this    connection. 

"  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  MPS  iJ1X*10  IT'S  3*lJ?n»  hit  (p.  II, 
11.  4-s ;  comp.  p.  XLIX,  n.  19;  I.  Levi,  RE  J.,  I.  c,  197;  Bacher,  ZfhB., 
XV,  21,  11.  5;  Kohler,  /.  c,  4-M- )  reading  3),"W  for  21J.TI' ;  comp.,  however, 
Moore,  Harvard  Theological  Review,  191 1,  246.  The  Falashas  postpone  even 
the    Day    of    Atonement    when    it    occurs    on    sabbath. 


KARAITE    1IAI.AKAH — REVKL  49 

tions  from  Tradition  in  the  laws  of  the  sabbath,  namely,  the 
prohibition  to  have  fire  in  the  house  on  the  sabbath  and  the 
prohibition  of  cohabitation  on  the  sabbath-day,  which 
Geiger  (Nachgel.  Schriftcn,  III,  288  ff.)  and  Harkavy 
(Gratz,  Gcschichte,  V\  478)  believe,78  go  back  to  Sadducean 
Tradition,  are  not  shared  by  this  Sect. 

The  law  of  this  Sect  that  water  in  a  rock  not  sufficient 
for  immersion  is  contaminated,  like  water  in  a  vessel,  when 
touched  by  an  unclean  person  (p.  10,  11.  13-14)  is  against 
the  Karaite  principle  that  water  does  not  contract  unclean- 
ness.  See  Kirkisani  (quoted  by  Harkavy,  Gratz,  Ge- 
schkhtc,  V4,  488)  who  states  that  this  was  the  view  of 
Anan.  So  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  235,  286,  295 ;  Mibhar,  Lev. 
28^;  py  p,  98c/  and  105c;  rrnn  ina,  Lev.  28a;  in^K  rrriK 
72. 

78  See  also  Fiirst,  Geschichte  d.  Karderthums,  I,  n.  While  the  opinion 
that  the  Sadducees  also  prohibited  cohabitation  on  sabbath  may  be  justified 
on  the  hypothesis  of  Geiger  that  any  divergence  from  traditional  halakah 
which  is  common  to  the  early  Samaritans  and  the  Karaites  goes  back  to  a 
pre-Pharisaic  (Sadducean)  tradition,  since  we  find  the  early  Samaritans 
holding  this  view  (Frankel,  Einfluss,  253,  stands  alone  in  his  opinion  that 
this  prohibition  was  adopted  by  the  Samaritans  from  the  Karaites;  comp. 
Wreschner,  18-19),  there  is  no  reason  to  assume  that  already  the  early 
Samaritans  prohibited  having  light  in  the  house  on  sabbath.  The  arguments 
adduced  by  the  Samaritans  Manugga  (Wreschner,  16,  17)  and  Ibrahim  b. 
Ja'kub  (who  knew  the  Karaite  view;  comp.  Geiger,  N.  S.,  Ill  289)  for  this 
prohibition  which  are  borrowed  from  the  Karaites  (Wreschner,  18)  tend  to 
show  that  this  prohibition  was  accepted  by  the  later  Samaritans  from  the 
Karaites.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  this  prohibition  resulted  from  the  ancient 
interpretation  of  the  concept  HDxSo  (Geiger,  /.  c;  comp.  Poznaiiski,  RE  J., 
XLIV  174  ff.  in  connection  with  which  see  the  claim  of  the  tenth  century 
Karaite  Ibn  Saquie,  who,  like  Geiger,  believed  in  the  existence  of  a  more 
ancient  Halakah  (JQR.,  XIII,  664;  DipH,  I,  1908,  125),  as  to  the  reading 
'in    Tosefta    Shabbat     I,    23;     n:uS    D'O     J'pniE     juT;    comp.    JQR.,    I.    c,    662; 

mpn,  /.  c,  120). 

"   See,   however,   the  view  of  Joseph  b.   Abraham   (quoted  in   Mibhar,  /.  c.) 
that       JTlSn     D'O      contract     uncleanness.       The     view     of     this     Sect     agrees 


50  KARAITE    TIALAKAH REVKI. 

According  to  this  Sect  (p.  10,  11.  11-12)  no  man 
ritually  unclean  shall  cleanse  himself  in  the  water  of  a 
vessel.  As  Schechter  (XLVIII,  n.  3)  remarks,  this  law  is 
directed  against  D'TiNL"  CO.  The  Karaites,  however,  not 
only  allow  D'aixtr  n-e  (comp.  MGWJ.,  1909,  469)  but,  as 
Kirkisani  informs  us  (quoted  by  Harkavy,  /.  c),  it  was 
the  view  of  Anan  that  one  who  does  not  bathe  in  a  vessel 
remains  unclean.'8 

The  two  laws  contained  in  p.  12,  11.  15-19  are,  as 
Schechter  (p.  LI,  n.  27)  remarks,  against  the  Tradi- 
tional view  that  only  v3  and  m?T\  are  capable  of  contracting 
and  communicating  Levitical  uncleanness.79  The  Karaites 
agree  with  Tradition  against  this  Sect.  See  Anan :  Xip  p"ri 
n*JKO  ~icj  Kin  jone  b:n  "ijnixS  ona  n:?&6»  rw  itrx  nnm 
JPDB'O  xb  xnTTy  iT3  "QUeS  (pyb  »"nD    ed.  Harkavy,  p.  51; 

partially  with  Mikwaot  i,  i  ff.  (according  to  the  interpretation  of  Maim, 
in  his  commentary  ad  he.  and  pSsiK  DKOIC ,  15,  O  that  water  less  than 
n«D  D*J?3*1M  (S'jno  H  13  J'N  HtM»,  p.  10,  ll.  12-13  may  also  mean  less 
than   PIND  'O    contract    uncleanness    if  H2132    even    when  13inO. 

Ps. -Jon's  rendering  of  Lev.  n,  36:  PJ733  |"a  rmj»33  M»3  1*5131  -is  against 
our  halakah.  It  may  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  Dositheans  held,  like  this 
Sect,   that   water   is   n>*ElD    SapO;   comp.    Kirchheim,     jnOlC    »B13,    25. 

78  The  Samaritans,  according  to  p.  Abodah  Zarah  5,  4.  agree  with 
Tradition    on    O'alNC    C'B:    comp.,    however,   C*""l  to    Mikwaot,    8,    1. 

,9  It    must,    however,    be    pointed    out    that    the    law    of    this    Sect    (p.    12, 

11.    17-18):  nxoiua  Kouo  n'aa  nan  nj?  w  icn  Snwa  ^n,  i«  "iodb  »t3  ?3i 

ncyO  »Sa  inx  (r.  nX!21i:a)  agrees  with  the  view  of  Hadassi,  Alph.  290,  292, 
that  in  the  case  of  Num.  19,  18  (DO  nx01U~)  HKDIB  is  contracted 
and  communicated  even  when  "121  no.  This  view  is  not  shared  by  the  other 
Karaites.  See  Mibhar,  Num.  10b;  mm  "Wa,  Num.  29b;  pj?  J3,  122c;  mix 
!n,£?N  ninBl  nNOlU  'J,',  ch.  20.  Even  in  case  of  0,-V31  man  (Lev.  II,  35; 
see  Rashi  and  Nahm.  ad  he,  Shabbat  125a;  Maim.,  0*73,  15,  6  and  com- 
mentary to  0,!?3  5,  1)  it  is  the  opinion  of  most  of  the  Karaites  that  it  is  not 
rtKOlB  ^apra  when  laina.  See  minina,  ad  he.  (28a);  pj>  p,  106a;  but 
31  1    I  [adassi,  Alph.  -■<)-•  and  Mibhar,  Lev.  iKu.     Ps.-Jon  and  Yalkut  on  Num.  19,  18. 


KARAITE    IIALAKAII REVEL  $1 

comp.  ib.,  p.  58  and  133;  Hadassi,  Alph.  286;  Mibhar, 
Lev.  17a,  20a;  mm  ins,  Lev.  26b,  28b;  py  p  ,  103/;,  ff. ; 
irrbx  nmx,  71b;    pnsx,  p.  21). 

The  Influence  of  the  Works  of  Philo  upon  the 
Karaite  Halakah 

penal  laws 

1 .  In  the  laws  of  homicide  the  Karaites  widely  deviate 
from  Tradition.  According  to  Tradition,  murder  is  pun- 
ishable only  when  felonious  intent  to  kill  has  been  proved 
(Sanhedrin  78b  ff.).80  Beside  intent,  antecedent  warning 
immediately  before  the  commission  of  the  crime  and  its 
acknowledgment  by  the  offender  (n&nnn)  are  required 
(Mekilta  on  Ex.  21,  12;  Sifre  on  Num.  15,  33  and  Deut. 
22,  24;  Sanhedrin  Sob;  Makkot  6b  and  parallels).  The 
Karaites  do  not  require  forewarning  in  any  crime81  and 
consider  murder^  punishable  even  in  the  absence  of  intent. 
See  praa  nKts>»,  2a:  nor  naon  nniK  p  noi  din  naon 
noi  K"X  nao  'K3E>  unnb  piano  px  ib"QXi.  So  also  Samuel  al- 
Magrabi  (Gitelsohn,  22).  Intent  to  kill  is  required  by  the 
Karaites  only  when  the  missile  by  which  the  killing  has 
been  effected  was  not  likely  to  cause  death.   See  py  p,  i76d: 

tysan  nx  nyic  nvn  B"  mbyo   vhvh  ainan  Dpbn  D'nvnm 

■wk  nana  mam  nab  mianb  pa  oxer  mmn  nr  papa  a^an  ainan  -jx 
nana  man  dx  nx  •  naa&ya  nxn  xnps  nr  no  xim  1a  mob  jam  xb 
dx  pna  &6b>  tto  Dyoy  tto  mm  nprna  naoa  nr  noi  ia  nuro 

80  According  to  R.  Simeon  (Sanhedrin  79a)  and  Rabbi  (Mekilta, 
Mishpatim,  8)  murder  is  not  punishable  even  in  case  of  miscarried  felonious 
intent,    i.    e.    when    a    man    intending    to    kill    a    person    killed    another    instead. 

"  Mibhar,  Exod.  42a:  p»A  »3'»n  Sd  pi  13  mn>t?  1J?  3«n  13'K  110N  J31 
min2C  1«S  JO  m»IV  nxinn  cm;  so  also  py  p,  177c  This  seems  also  the 
opinion   of  Philo;   see   IVerke  Pliitos,   II    (Breslau   1910),  263,   n.  2. 


52  KARAITE   II ALA K AH — REVEL 

mc  xS  ix  n  nvi\  (Comp.  also  Mibhar,  Exod.  32/7  and  nro 
min ,  Numb.  49b  and  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (Gitelsohn, 
14)  in  which  case  the  offender  would,  according  to 
Tradition,  not  be  punishable  at  all  (Mekilta  to  Ex.  21,  18; 
Sifre  to  Num.  35,  17  (ed.  Friedmann  61b)  ;  Sanhedrin  79a; 
Maimonides,  ni'in ,  3,  1-3. ).82  Tradition  punishes  mur- 
der only  when  the  murderer  has  laid  his  hand  on 
the  victim  and  the  death  has  resulted  from  such 
direct  assault ;  handing  another  poison,  unless  actu- 
ally forcing  it  in  his  mouth,  or  leading  him  to  a 
place  where  in  a  short  while  a  force  of  nature  or 
a  beast  will  kill  him,  is  thus  not  punished  by  death  (Sifre 
to  Num.  35,  17;  Sanhedrin  76b  ff. ;  Maim.,  nvn,  2,  2  ff.). 
The  Karaites  do  not  require  the  death  to  be  the  direct  re- 
sult of  the  action  of  the  murderer.  The  Karaites  accept 
the  view  of  R.  Judah  b.  Bathyra  (Sanhedrin  78a)  in  case 
of  murder  committed  by  several  people  simultaneously.  See 
p»\n  mtBTD,  2a:  nrvo  d'tti  d^o  -inn  d^'JX  r^x  ""y  nnjm. 
See  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  152  and  Alph.  166;  py  p,  177c; 
and  Samuel  al  Magrabi,  MS.,  84a:  e'E»S  mnn  dx  Bnsn  pxi 
...  rumrn  D^rino  bun  ...  nr  arm  can  ix  nnx  sin  dx;  and  the 
opinion  of  Beth  Shammai  (Kiddushin  43a)  con- 
cerning murder  committed  through  an  agent.  See  py  |J, 
177/?:  '11S  H1  Sy  in  iovya  Dnxn  in^y  dx  nnxi;  comp.  Hadassi, 

82  Nor    do    the    Karaites,    in    case    of    the    defendant's    confession    of    any 
crime,     require     witnesses     to     establish     guilt.        See     Benjamin     Nahawendi, 

p,o»aa  nxtro    re:  d»:ok3  any  >3tw  vb  nxiw  ;h  n<3  'apSi;  so  also  Hadassi 

(Alph.  357H):  DHJ,"  '3tT3  X1H  131iy  Sy  Kin  mV  "ItPK  KOlfl  min  ;  see  also 
Alph.    370;    so   also   samuel   aLMagrabi    (MS.,    1056):     S'lH  ^'3  "13T  OK  '3  JH 

D'B^non  nyiti  TBna  mi  ony^  -piss^  nh  pi  p  »n'»y  *3k  intoi  icbs  by; 

comp.  also  Mibhar,  Num.  50;  py  ]3,  ig^d;  in,lKmi(l,  98a.  The  talmudic 
principle  is  yen  l!3Xy  D'CO  C1X  |'K .  no  man  can  incriminate  himself, 
confessing  of  guilt  not  being  admitted  as  evidence  (Sanhedrin  gb  and  parallels; 
Maimonides,    ]mn3D,    18,   6;    but    comp.    Weiss,   I,   22-3). 


KARAITE    II  AI.AKAH — RKVK.I,  53 

Alph.  269  ff. ;  comp.  also  Weiss,  I,  150.  They  also  con- 
sider accessories,  accomplices,  and  counselors  to  murder 
punishable  equally  with  the  principal.     See  Hadassi,  Alph. 

274:  Kin  sin  mnji  irtnb  *ha  pa  nnDa  pa  nanb  pe6on  jai 
.  .  .  -pn  rvaa  npma  inni  an  dwi  aSai  nvnn.  See  ins 
rrnn,  Exod.  64^-650:  D'arm  »je»k  niSD  icon  inna  naai 
mbtt  '•I1  Sy  pa  lovya  iaa-irvB>  pa  Tnn^i  nvn  mxn  x-ip"  dtvdk' 
...  wanna  nnv  im  winna  aaon?  pa  nptr  nnya  pa  rnon  dd  *"y  pa; 
so  alsopyp,  177&.  See  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (MS. 
84/?) :  Dinn  nnT  -a  onei  ....  Ta  nxan  ia?ara  d'jbik  Sy  bisn  nannn 
npe»  »a  onci  ...  trxS  ix  D'ob  ix  3bB>b  w  naj  Dipoo  ^is""i  inyn  nx 
D-ix-in  anpyn  nb-rta  ihkbti  "'Sin  ia  irrr  is  dd  nan  nx  nnxn 
...jna-nnb  naD  rpm  inyna  dikpi  ban'  »a  dhdi  ...  nnva  ninn  inwb 
nraix  ix  lBsaa  mix  nw  DiKn  dk  lnirm  w«  Saa  fcnen  pKi 
...  rrnnn  ■■Batpoa  enun  or-pro  xS  nswm  noixn  "a  nwyb  -inbirb. 
So  also  Mibhar,  Exod.  380. 

These  Karaite  laws  approach  the  view  of  Philo  accord- 
ing to  whom  intent  to  kill  even  when  not  carried  out  is 
punished  by  death  (I,  314,  Mangey,  comp.  B.  Ritter,  Philo 
und  die  Halacha,  Leipzig  1879,  23  ff.  and  Werke  Philos, 
II,  209,   note  3).83 

83  Josephus  (Ant.  XII,  a,  i)  agrees  with  Tradition  that  only  action  is 
punishable.  Philo  states  in  this  connection  (II,  315)  that  those  who  with 
murderous  intent  prepare  poison  or  any  other  deadening  substance  are  to 
be  killed  instantly  (Josephus,  Ant.  IV7,  8,  34,  considers  even  the  keeping  of 
poison  punishable  by  death  in  which,  as  Weyl,  p.  66  ff.,  has  shown,  he 
followed  the  Roman  law  (Lex  Cornelia  de  sicariis)).  As  suggested  by 
Ritter  (p.  28),  Philo  based  this  law  on  Exod.  22,  17.  The  Septuagint 
translates  nECTE  by  (pa.pfia.Korc  which  has  also  the  meaning  of  "poisoners.*' 
Ritter  fails,  however,  to  indicate  the  source  of  Philo's  assertion  that  the 
Law  commands  that  the  poisoner  is  to  be  executed  immediately.  The 
peculiar  expression  H'nH  N1?  instead  of  the  usual  man  niO  (comp.  n"2tr*l  and 
Nahm.,  ad  loc.)  must  have  been  taken  by  Philo  to  mean  "do  not  suffer  him 
to  live  even  a  moment."  This  interpretation  of  "Tnn  X7  is  also 
found      among     the     Karaites.        Samuel      al-Magrabi      (MS.,     141b)    says    that 


54  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

2.    Ransom  for  death  caused  by  the  unguarded  prop- 
erty of  a  man  or  through  his  instrumentality  is  required, 
according  to  Tradition,  only  in  the  case  of  the  goring  ox 
(Exod.    21,   29-31),   the    provision   not   applying   to    death 
caused  by  any  other   property  or   by   any   cause   of   danger 
created  by  him  (Baba  kamma  5,  6;  b.  ib.,  53Z?;  Maimonides, 
poo  "pTJ,  12,  16).  The  Karaites  interpret  the  law  of  ransom 
(v.  30)  to  apply  to  all  cases  where  a  person  meets  death 
through   the   negligence  of  the   owner  of   the  property   or 
the  creator  of  the  cause  of  death.     Thus,  whether  it  be  a 
pit    (Ex.   21,   33-35),   or  a   fire   kindled   on  one's  premises 
that  spread  beyond  (ib.,  22,  5),  or  failure  of  the  owner  of 
a  house  to  build  a  battlement  for  his  roof  (Deut.  22,  8) — 
and  a  person  was  killed  as  a  result  of  such  negligence — 
in  all  these  cases  the  Karaites  hold  that  the  owner  of  the 
property  or  the  maker  of  the  fire  or  pit  is  to  pay  ransom, 
according  to  Exod.  21,  30.     As  Hadassi  says:   aawn  min 
npw  ncry  xb  icw  nu!>  hdd  s*h  nyin  -ib>k  :  nip  "ioc  &6i  Hfc'te' 
irmna  -im  nrrVntw  "in"  nrro  dhd  n^ini  Wib84    (Alph.,  274). 
See    ib.,    Alph.    270   and    370.     See    also  po'oa  nxtro,  2c: 
rem   B>ajm  dis  <aa  fo   'x  Dna  psnsn  Sam  mivDi  ns  poison 
bvn  naa  jm:  isia  ctrpao  dxi  •  "iji  dwi  'Din  ikvoj  o  K"nai. 
See  also  py  p,  i8otf:  L"D:a   pa  wmrun  ixo  Kan  pnn  dSxi 

though    the   Law    reprieves   the   condemned    pregnant   woman,   in   case   of  PIEC20 
the   execution   is  not   to  be   postponed   since  the   Law   says    ilTin    X?  :    X7    "10N1 


nnmo  ~nxh  wS  -ico'  xS  '2  -loxon  ma  lajpiin  mon  mo  -iox   xSi  mnn 
mnn  103  x'n  'o  maiyo  nnn  x»n  dxi  nj?S  npo. 

84  Comp.,  however,  Mibbar.,  Exod.  436.  The  Karaites  agree  also  with 
Philo  (II,  324),  agains*  Mekilta  ad  loc,  in  the  interpretation  of  V)  HTP  noni 
(v.  34)  as  referring  to  the  pUO;  Philo  (323)  and  Hadassi,  Alph.  273,  interpret 
also  lS  rvm  nom  in  v.  36  as  puoS.  So  also  Benjamin  Nahawendi,  nxCO 
I'O'aa,  2f,  1.  1,  but  see  Mibhar,  ad  loc;  mm  "in 3  Lev.  74a;  comp.  also 
]-|J?    ]i,    iSib. 


KARAITE    HAI.AKAIl UKVKI.  55 

Tarn  lnmn  sy.'  1213  |rp  ik?  dki  ib  ni-y  p  D-oioa  pa 
nam  •  wwnan  nrpm  bi?  «bi  nvn  tr^  ima  inpn  *oi  ainan 
-isia  dk  now  •  nov  l^ya  d:i  Spd*  n^n  ids  nity  nrrm  ^y 
morn  pmnm  •  r?y  ner  *i2*k  baa  wen  jvna  jnai  rby  nw 
-isiD  (n1  dhd  insa  b>bj  nnj  dsl"  obab  pin  som  pp»r*i  mas  yaix. 
Comp.  i&.,  178J,  181  c,  182b  and  Samuel  al  Magrabi,  Gitel- 
sohn,  39-40.  Further  fol.  133a  (not  published)  he  says: 
aTm"  moi  id~il":i  trsn  ornx  n:rni  niB'aJ  ix  D^JN  ql"  vn  dki 
db*sj  naiaa. 

A  view  similar  to  this  Karaite  anti-traditional  law — 
that  also  other  cases  of  criminal  negligence  are  punishable 
— is  held  by  Philo. 

Expounding  the  law  of  Ex.  21,  33  (II,  324),  Philo 
says  that  if  a  man  fall  into  the  pit  and  die  the  court  shall 
decide  what  punishment  the  digger  is  to  suffer  or  what 
fine  he  is  to  pay  (on  xt»i  naOeiv  //  airorioat') .  He  also  says 
about  the  law  of  Deut.  22,  8,  that  those  who  fail  to  make 
a  battlement  to  their  roof  commit  a  crime  equal  to  that  of 
one  who  digs  a  pit,  and  declares:    Koka&aBuoav  yow  «•  iau  roi^ 

axavr]  -a    arouta    ruv    opvyfiarav    narcOrmovaiv  •      comp.      Rltter,       K2 

and  notes. 

Philo  and  the  Karaites  agree  also  in  the  interpretation 
of  v.  2gb  n»r  vby2  DJl.  Tradition  interprets  it  to  mean  that 
the  owner,  if  he  does  not  redeem  himself,  shall  suffer  death 
at  the  hand  of  God85  D'ttl"  'Ta  nrpB  (Mekilta,  Mishpatim,  X; 

85  Frankel  (Einfluss,,  93)  believes  that  the  translation  of  the  Septuagint 
indicates  the  traditional  interpretation,  against  which  see  Ritter,  48,  n.  2 
and  124  ff.  and  H.  Weyl,  Die  Jiidischen  Strafgesetze  bei  Flavins  Josephus, 
Berlin  1900,  153  ff.  The  view  of  Geiger  (Urschrift,  448  ff.)  that  the 
ancient  halakah  interpreted  HOT  vSj,'2  DJ1  as  E1X  »1*3  TWO  was  already 
shown  by  Pineles  (  71111*1  *****  71311 ,  193-6)  and  Weyl  (/.  c,  144-153)  to  be 
unfounded;  comp.  also  Poznanski,  Abraham  Geiger,  Leben  u.  Lebenswerk, 
378,    n.    1. 


56  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

Sanhedrin  15&;  comp.  Ps.-Jon.  to  v.  29).  The  Karaites 
uphold  the  literal  interpretation  of  HDPvbpa  D3l(i.  e.  D1K  ST2) 
and  take  V?y  ni'T  ISD  DX1  (v.  30a)  to  mean  that  the  nearest 
kinsmen  (Din  "6x1:1)  °f  tne  killed  are  to  decide  whether  to 
execute  him  or  to  take  ransom.  See  Benjamin  Nahawendi, 
po^a  nxtro,  2c :  xin  din  rvoni  nyio  vbyai  [men]  y-ru  xm  nxi 
»bnu  dxi  •  nor  rbya  dji  ^pd"  -iispn  x"nai  rbya  dj  now  ^pd* 
nonan  *t  bv  it  nrin  n  "naya  bwi  jn*1  nsa  u»»  np,L>  d^ti  mn 
x"nae>  :  isd  D"npib  cvn  dxi  D'Jiin  D^'n  dx  DTa  rosnn  id"qS 
rby  DOT  naa  DX .  See  also  Hadassi  (Alph.  270,  370); 
py  P,  177^,  and  mm  ir\2,  ad  loc.  (73b)  ;  Samuel  al  Mag- 
rabi  (Gitelsohn,  35-36). 

Philo  holds  the  same  view,  and  in  his  exposition  of 
this  law  (II,  323)  says  that  the  owner  of  the  goring  ox  is 
guilty  of  the  man's  death.  He  shall  be  put  to  death  or 
pay  ransom.  The  court  shall  decide  his  punishment.  The 
Karaites  thus  agree  with  Philo  and  differ  only  as  to  the 
question  with  whom  rests  the  option  of  death  or  ransom; 
while  according  to  Philo  (so  also  Mekilta,  ad  loc.)  the 
court  is  to  decide,  the  Karaites  hold  that  it  rests  with  the 
mn  -6x13. 

3.  Tradition  interprets  the  law  of  Ex.  21.  24-26  and 
Lev.  24,  19-21  to  mean  money  indemnity  (Mekilta  ad  loc, 
(Mishpatim  8)  ;  Sifra  on  Emor,  24,  19;  Baba  kamma  8,  1; 
Ketubbot  35a  and  parallels;  comp.  Maimonides,  P'TOl  Tom 
1,  1  ff.). 

Philo  takes  these  verses  literally  and  in  several  places 
vigorously  advocates  the  practice  of  lex  talionis.  See  Rit- 
ter.  Philo  und  die  Halacha,  p.  18  ff.  The  lex  talionis  is  ac- 
cepted in  all  its  severity  also  by  nearly  all  the  Karaites.  Ben- 
jamin Nahawendi  interprets  n?  nnn  py  literally.  See  Ben- 
jamin Nahawendi,  p»"Ja  nxeo,  2d;  rraro  Dim  n2D  ba  ~-cyr\ 


KARAITE    HAI.AKAH KKVKI.  S7 

)b  ntrjr  p  iWJ»  1L"XD  lOOPjnaa.  So  also  Ben  Zuta,  a  Kar- 
aite contemporary  of  Saadia  Gaon  (Ibn  Ezra  on  Exod.  21, 
24)  ;  Jepheth  b.  Ali  (MGIVJ.,  XLI,  1897,  205)  ;  Hadassi 
(Alph.  275  (104c);  370  (1466);  373  (149^);  comp.  also 
Alph.  170)  ;  Aaron  b.  Joseph  (Mibhar,  Exod.  42a)  ;  Aaron 
b.  Elias  (WV.  179a  ff. ;  iTHn  ^ns,  Exod.  71  b  ft.)  J  Samuel 
al  Magrabi  (Gitelsohn,  /.  c,  28-9)  ;  Abraham  b.  Josiah 
0&K  rwiDI*,  24b);  Solomon  Troki    (jTiBK,  39).88 

86  See  also  Rapoport,  DTlJjn  H133 ,  1831,  p.  34.  L.  Low,  Gesammelte 
Schriften,  I,  287  is  to  be  corrected  accordingly.  Harkavy,  \y/?  On"D,  198. 
believes  that  Anan  also  upheld  lex  talionis;  comp.  also  Schechter,  Jewish 
Sectaries,  II,  7,  11.  5-7.  The  Samaritans  also  interpret  J*J?  nnn  J*J? 
literally  (Klumel,  Mischpatim,  ein  samaritanisch-arabischer  Commentar,  XX; 
JQR.,  191 1,  210  is  to  be  corrected  accordingly).  Some  Karaites  restrict  the 
application  of  lex  talionis  to  intentional  permanent  injury;  still  others  leave 
it  to  the  discretion  of  the  court  to  pronounce  sentence  of  equal  punishment 
or  indemnity;  comp.  Mibhar,  Exod.  53a;  mm  "If13,  Exod.  716  ff.  According 
to  the  Scholion  of  Megillat  Ta'anit  ch.  4  (Neubauer,  Mediaeval  Jewish 
Chronicles.  II,  8;  comp.  Gratz,  III4,  693)  the  Boethusians  extended  their 
literalism  to  lex  talionis.  Geiger  at  one  time  (Urschrift,  148,  but  see  id., 
Sadducaer  u.  Pharisaer,  22;  Xachg.  Schriften,  V,  Heb.,  162),  Rapoport 
(riEXI  CI^C  '12T,  15),  and  Ritter  (133-4)  deny  this  report  any  historical 
basis  (comp.  Jost,  Geschichte  d.  Judenthums,  I,  Leipzig  1885,  221;  L.  Low, 
/.  c.j  286;  Buchler,  MGWJ.,  L  (1906),  679,  n.  and  the  literature  adduced  by 
Ritter,  /.  c.).  Such  an  important  difference  would  not  have  been  left 
unnoticed  in  the  talmudic  literature.  It  is  also  improbable  that  Josephus,  who 
was  an  avowed  Pharisee  {Vita,  II,  end)  and  who  in  all  the  differences  be- 
tween the  Sadduccees  and  the  Pharisees,  as  far  as  his  opinion  is  known 
to  us,  sides  with  the  Pharisees  (except  in  the  interpretation  of  spcn  CK2 
in  Lev.  21,  9;  see  Olitzki,  Flavins  Josephus  und  die  Halacha,  Berlin  1885, 
42,  44,  54  and  Ritter,  26),  would  have  accepted  the  literal  interpretation  of 
]»y    nnn    J'J?     (Ant.    IV,    8,    35)    if   it   were   anti-Pharisaic. 

Geiger  (Xachg.  Schriften,  V,  Heb.  162)  claims  that  the  ancient  halakah  also 
interpreted  J'JJ  nnn  ^J,'  literally,  as  R.  Eliezer  held  this  view  (Baba  kamma 
84a;  see  the  version  of  R.  Eliezer's  opinion  in  Mibhar,  Exod.  42a,  which 
he  seems  to  have  taken  from  Mekilta,  Mishpatim,  8,  reading  R.  Eliezer  for 
pn^'  '1;  comp.  Geiger,  /.  c,  and  L.  Low,  /.  c,  287,  n.  2).  See  I.  Halevy, 
D'HCXin  nnn.  vol.  Ic,  425  ff.  for  elucidation  of  the  traditional  view  and 
that   of   R.    Eliezer;    comp.    S.    Munk,   Guide   des  Egarcs,   371,   n.    1.      Philo    (II, 


58  KARAITE    II  ALA  K All — REVEL 

Philo  (II,  323,  end)  states  that  the  owner  of  an  animal 
that  killed  a  slave  is  to  pay  the  full  value  of  the  slave. 
Ritter  (49)  considers  this  view  of  Philo  to  be  against  Exod. 
21,  32:  rnsS  in"  D'SpC"  D,b6k>.  Many  Karaite  authorities 
agree  with  Philo  and  hold  that  v.  32  establishes  the  mini- 
mum fine  and  that  if  the  value  of  the  slave  be  more  than 
bp>B>  D^'Sl",  the  owner  is  to  be  paid  the  full  value  of  the 
slave.  Other  Karaites  hold  that  by  bpt"  D^L"  the  law  indi- 
cates the  value  of  the  average  slave  and  that  in  all  cases 
the  owner  of  the  animal  is  to  pay  the  full  value  of  the 
slave.  See  py  |J,  181a:  nnS  :nn:)n  p  nnjj  iron  dni 
bpnb  v*  vbw  noK  n^ipn  ^ym  .-nyn  bvib  wbpw  wbw 
ins*  ~\-\y  D,3ifc,mfc>  nay  insi  DTiinsai"  nay  nnx  Tonnin 
:  ma  D^pbin  D\x~ipn  'Dana  i,',l"  s"yx  nnsn  nay  n^Epi  cbnJ 
DnoiK  dhoi  .  vbv  spmnb  ^  bat*  ninsn  ~py  nit."  nnoiK  nm  tr 
V)i:b)  spDinb  k"i  ,Ji3,2  it;  rv:\    ^o  also  mining,  Exod.  73b- 

The  Karaites  agree  with  Philo  also  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Exod.  21,  19  lmycro  by  pm  nSnnm  Dip'  dk.  Tra- 
dition (Mekila  ad  loc.  (Mishpatim,  6)  ;  Onkelos  and  p. 
Ketubbot  4,  4  (  2$c  ;  but  see  Ps.-Jon.  and  Xahm.  ad  loc. ),  tak- 
ing iroycro  by  figuratively,  interprets  it  to  mean  that  the 
offender  is  not  liable  for  death  consequent  on  a  blow,  if  in 
the  interval  the  injured  party  has  so  far  recovered  that 
he  is  able  to  walk  about  "on  his  own  strength,"  i.  e.  without 
others'  assistance.  Philo  (II,  317;  Ritter,  32,  note  3)  takes 
injytro  by  literally,  namely,  that  even  when  the  injured  party 
required  the  support  of  a  staff  or  of  a  man  the  offender  is 

313;  Ritter,  22)  holds  (against  Mishnah  Sanhedrin  9,  1;  Mekilta  on  Exod. 
21,  12)  that  the  murderer  is  to  be  killed  in  the  same  manner  in  which  he 
committed  the  crime  (so  also  Book  of  Jubilees  4,  32).  This  is  also  the 
view  of  many  Karaites.  See  S.  Gitelsohn,  Civil-Gesetsc  der  Karaer  von 
Samuel  al-Magrebi,  14,  11.  13-15;  see,  however,  ]*1J?  ]i,  177c.  The  opinion  of 
Biichler  (MGWJ.,  L  (1906),  679  n.,  692,  706)  that  this  was  also  the  view 
nf   the    Sadducees   is    not   supported   by   any   proof. 


KARAITE    HAI.AKAII — RKVia  59 

to  be  acquitted.  The  Karaites  interpret  WJJ/C'O  by,  like  Philo, 
literally;  see  mm -ma,  Exod.,  71a:  nblpn  »bmi  •••  lruyL-o  by 
1133  U"Xi  \DUV  nay^oa  nOK.  So  also  Mibhar,  arf  /oc;  py  \i, 
180b;  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (Gitelsohn,  23). 

The  Karaites  interpret  also  Deut.  25,  12  hqd  riN  niVpl 
against  Tradition  (Sifre  ad  loc;  comp.  Midrash  Tannaim. 
ed.  Hoffmann,  168  ff.)  literally;  see  Mibhar  ad  lac.  (22b)  ; 
mm  in:  ad  loc;  Samuel  Al  Magrabi,  (Gitelsohn,  29).    So 

also  Philo  (II,  328)  :  E<rrw  6e  1}  Sitai  xeiP°G  airoKom)  ->/<;  atjia/iivT/c, 
il)v  o'v  flefjti;. 

4.  Philo  deviates  in  his  exposition  of  Exod.  21,  22  ff. 
from  Tradition  which  refers  J1DN  in  verses  22-23  to  the 
woman  and  holds  the  man  guilty  of  murder  if  he  killed 
the  mother,  but  not  punishable  for  the  deadly  effect  of  the 
blow  on  the  unborn  child,  regarding  the  foetus  only  as  part 
or  limb  of  the  mother  (pars  viscerum  matris)  and  without 
an  independent  existence  (Mekilta  ad  loc;  Baba  kamma 
486  ff. ;  see  also  Ohalot  7,  6  and  Ps.-Jon.  to  v.  22).  Philo 
(II,  317  comp.  319,  beg.)  takes  this  law  to  refer  to  the 
embryo  and  interprets  these  verses:  If  the  foetus  miscar- 
ried by  the  blow  was  not  formed  at  the  time  of  the  blow 
the  offender  is  not  liable  for  murder  (verse  22),  but  if  the 
embryo  has  assumed  a  distinct  shape  and  is  completed  the 
offender  shall  die  for  the  death  of  the  child  (verse  23)." 
Philo,  though  considering  the  unborn  child  to  be  a  part  of 
the  mother   (II,  319),  holds  that  the  law  of  Lev.  22,  28 

87  Philo  follows  the  Septuagint  in  the  interpretation  of  these  verses; 
see  Ritter,  35.  Josephus  (Ant.,  IV,  8,  33)  agrees  with  Tradition  and  refers 
]1DX  to  the  mother  only;  comp.  Geiger,  Urschrift,  436-7.  Yet  he  holds,  like 
the  Karaites  (Hadassi,  Alph.  270  (1036)),  causing  abortion  to  be  murder. 
See  C.  Ap.,  II,  24;  comp.  M.  Zipser,  Des  Flavins  Josephus  Werk...  gegen 
Apion,  164.  Some  Karaites  follow  Tradition  in  the  interpretation  of  flDN. 
See    Benjamin    Nahawendi,    pO'33  n^CO,    2d;    mm  im,    Exod.    71b,    below. 


6o.  KARAITE    II  AI.  A  K  A  II  —  KKYKI. 

includes  the  prohibition  of  sacrificing  a  pregnant  animal,  a 
law  unknown  to  Tradition  (II,  398;  comp.  Frankel,  Ucbcr 
palastinische  u.  alcxandrinischc  Schriftforscluuig,  32,  n.  6; 
Ritter,  109  and  notes).  Philo  (/.  c;  comp.  Ritter,  /.  c.  n. 
3)  seems  also  to  believe,  against  Tradition  (Arakin  ja; 
comp.  Ps.-Jan.  to  Deut.  22,  22),  that  the  law  reprieves  a 
pregnant  woman  condemned  to  death.  These  anti- 
traditional  views  of  Philo  are  found  also  among  the 
Karaites.  The  Karaites,  like  Philo,  consider  the  killing  of 
an  embryo  murder  punishable  by  death  (Hadassi,  Alph. 
238-,  270*2,  275';  see  also  references  given  below)  and 
interpret  pns  in  verses  22,  23  to  refer  to  the  embryo  or  to 
the  mother  and  the  embryo.  See  Kirkisani  (ed.  PoznahskH 
in  Gedenkbuch  zur  Erinncrung  an  David  Kaufmann, 
Breslau  1900,  186;  Hadassi,  Alph.  238;  270;  Mibhar, 
Exod.  42/;;   min  -iri3,  Exod.  y\b  ft".;   py  p ,  177^;  \79c-d; 

Samuel  al  Magrabi,  ed.  Gitelsohn,  27  ft.  They  also  con- 
sider the  killing  of  a  pregnant  animal  violation  of  Lev.  22, 
28  and  go  even  further  than  Philo  in  prohibiting  the  s>s'i:' 
a  foetus  found  in  a  killed  animal,  for  food.  See  Kirkisani. 
ed.  Harkavy,  291 ;  and  ed.  Poznanski,  /.  c,  184  ft. ;  Sahl  b. 
Masliah  (Pinsker,  II,  28;  comp.  ib.,  30,  83);  Salmon  b. 
Jeruham  (Poz.,  /.  c.  186-7)  ;  Hadassi,  Alph.  238-240;  308  ; 
360  ;  364  (1340?)  ;  Mibhar,  Lev.  15/?;  39a;  mimrD,  Lev. 
24a;  62b;  PI?  p,  83d  ft'.;  Samuel  al  Magrabi,  ed.  Lorge. 
10-11;  lrr^N  mnx,  64b  ft.;  irisx,  23;  niabo  mS,  47;  comp. 
also  Ibn  Ezra,  Mibhar,  and  min  "im  on  Gen.  25,  22  and 
Lekah  Tob  on  Lev.  11,    13    and    12,   8.88     Many   Karaites 

88  See  also  Frankel,  MGWJ.,  VIII,  400.  The  Samaritans  also  apply  the 
law  of  Lev.  22,  28  to  S'StP;  see  Geiger,  Nachg.  Schriften,  III,  263-4;  302, 
V,  Heb.,  114;  Wreschner,  Intr.,  XX VII.  Geiger's  view  (Nachg.  Schr.,  X, 
Heb.,  112  ff. ;  comp.  also  Biichler,  MGWJ.,  L  (1906),  674,  note)  that  this 
Samaritan-Karaite  opinion  is  based  upon  the  principle  of  :  "p*  1K7  121  J? 
1D8  .   a  view  which,  as  Geiger   (/.   c.)   believes,   was    held  also    by    the    ancient 


KARAITE    II  AI.AKAII REVEL  ''I 

prohibit  also  the  execution  of  a  pregnant  woman. 
Mibhar  on  Deut.  22,  22  an  1  ^ds  DTtt  ad  loc™  Samuel  al 
Magrabi  (MS.  86a)  states:  rroiJ/O  s(n  dx  tdm  nOK"1  DMi 
mnwo  nth  nnn  "3  "Wi*  ah  lb  yaw  ,mniyo  nth  nnn  *r  -ieoti 
cmn  rsvij  p  Kb  ex:  nnn  r\-\^  in«i  nSmr  inxS  nnnx'  bax 
nnna  nna  b>sj  b«  DBtPoni  me'SJ  tic. 

5.  Tradition  interprets:  norma  'n  DE>  npn  (Lev.  24. 
16)  to  mean  the  cursing  of  the  Divine  Name  (Sanhedrin 
7,  5;  Sifra  ad  he-;  comp.  Ps-Jon.  ad  loc:  VftEbl  fKC  D13 
---•:•,  1  :'"  so  also  the  Septuagint  (comp.  Frankel,  Einfluss, 
132)  and  Josephus  (Ant.  IV,  8,  6).  Philo  (Vita  Mosis,  II. 
§  206  ft.)  refers  this  law  to  any  disrespectful  mention  of 
the  name  of  God  at  an  inappropriate  occasion  or  place.  To 
this  untraditional  interpretation  of  2pJi  by  Philo,  goes 
back  the  view  of  Philo  (Tischendorf,  Philonca,  79;  comp. 
Frankel.  Bidesleistung  d.  Juden,  Dresden  1840,  21  ;  Ritter, 
xyj)  that  the  law  punishes  a  false  oath  with  death.  As 
Philo  (I.  c,  80)  argues,  a  false  oath  involves  the  dishonor 
of  the  Divine  Name  therein  employed  (comp.  Lev.  19,  12) 

halakah,  is  erroneous.  The  question  of  1QX  TV  121j;  is  applied  in  the 
Talmud  to  animals  and  slaves  but  not  to  free  persons.  See  also  against 
this  contention  of  Geiger  Pineles,  min  bv  rOVT,  190  ff.;  L.  Low,  Gcs.  Schr. 
Ill,  401;  Gronemann,  122,  note.  It  must  also  be  pointed  out  that  most 
of  the  Karaites  mentioned  above  do  not  distinguish  in  the  interpretation  of 
J1DX     between    a    finished    and    an    unfinished    embryo. 

89  Ki'kisani  agrees  with  Tradition  that  the  execution  is  not  to  be 
postponed  (ed.  Poznanski,  Gedenkbuch  sur  Erinnerung  an  D.  Kaufmann. 
185).  Samuel  al-Magrabi  (ed.  Gitelsohn,  38)  states  that  the  Law  reprieves 
even   a   pregnant   animal   condemned   to   death!      See  above,   note   83. 

90  For  Onkelos  ad  loc:  H!2V  ClEO  HI  see  Geiger,  Urschrift,  274. 
Chwolson,  Das  Ictste  Passamahl  Christi,  119,  overlooked  the  view  of  R. 
Meir  (Sanhedrin  56a)  that  M333  ?7pB  is  also  punished  with  death.  (M. 
Duschack,  Josephus  Flavius  u.  d.  Tradition,  23  is  to  be  corrected  accordingly.) 
See,   however,   the  opinion   of   R.    Levi   N3H3  2"H  XHp'DE  ed.    Friedmann,    184a: 

...  ctr  2pi:i    'soir  nn'Q   a»n  n"apn  hv  mv  tfvsn  xinc  <d  Sr. 


62  KARAITE    IIALAKAII REVEL 

and  he  applies  to  it  the  law  of  Lev.  24,  16,  according  to  his 
interpretation  of  this  verse.  Most  of  early  Karaites  agree 
with  Philo  in  the  interpretation  of  'Jl  DL"  3p31  (v.  16).  See 
Anan  (ed.  Harkavy,  13)  ;  |k»  Vi  "Vn*b  bbp'  *3  tvb  onpxi  ... 
tfSop  t^dt  D\xp  xm^^pa  warm  rroty  -onxn.91  The  Ka- 
raites, like  Philo,  also  set  the  punishment  of  death  for  false 
oath.92  See  Hadassi,  Alph.  346  ,  347  ;  Mibhar,  Exod. 
37a;  min  idd,  Exod.  62b;  comp.  ib.,  Deut.  24b;  Samuel  al 
Magrabi  (MS.,  67a)  ;  lrv^K  nmx,  rnynt",  ch.  6.  They  follow 
also  the  reason  given  by  Philo.  As  a  false  oath  involves 
the  dishonor  of  the  name  of  God  the  penalty  therefor  is 
death  in  accordance  with  Lev.  24,  16.93 

91  Harkavy's  note  to  it  (ib.,  198,  s.  v.  '12T)  is  unintelligible.  The 
later  Karaites  abandoned  this  interpretation  of  2pI1  ;  comp.  Mibhar,  Lev. 
446.  For  the  Samaritan  interpretation  of  3p31  see  Griinbaum,  ZDMG., 
XVI     (1862),    401     ff. 

92  According  to  Tradition  (Tosefta  Makkot  4,  5;  b.  Shabuot  20a)  the 
penalty  of  a  false  oath  is  mp?0  ;  comp.,  however,  SEirijn,  3D,1 ,  2 
and  Nahm.  on  Lev.  27,  29.  See  Schechter,  Jewish  Sectaries,  I,  p.  16, 
1.  8  and  notes,  that  according  to  the  sect  which  Schechter  designates  as 
Zadokite  (see  above)  "one  is  to  keep  a  vow  pledging  him  to  a  particular 
commandment  even  at  the  risk  of  death."  The  view  of  Kohler  (American 
Journal  of  Theology,  191 1,  417),  that  according  to  that  sect  the  penalty  of 
any  false  oath  is  death  is  not  proved.  The  Zadokite  sect  (/.  c,  p.  15,  11.  1-3) 
agrees  also  with  Philo  (/.  c. ;  comp.  Frankel,  Eidesleistung,  19-20)  that  oaths 
are  not  to  be  taken  by  God's  name.  See  Schechter,  /.  c,  LIV,  as  to  the 
Samaritan  manner  of  oath,  against  which  see  Kohler,  /.  c;  but  see  L.  Low, 
Ges.   Schr.,    I,    193    ff . ;   comp.    also   Griinbaum,   /.    c,   404. 

93   See     Afendopolo's    appendix    to  IH'Sk  mix,    Odessa     1870,    20<)cd:     31*11 

....  nSSm  na  iptr  is  injriae*  Sj?  layc  »»*•  nn»o  wn  ipDB  dpi'Svmi  D'aartn 
n»mn  o  nt  oyi  nasi  ...  nw  a»»n  nyiawn  icon  '3  n"y  "lS  mi  a*w  idhi 
'3  str*  uij*  vSaisi  10S3C  nion  sin  ibb»o  BHp  SSrv  »o  '3  ticcon  s'sv 
min>  lan-i  a*in  njn  pi  'n  dp  SSn  »ia  -.Dim  *?p»i  nmaai  %n  'n  trip  ns 
D3nm    n"y   nSn   ne»i  nyip'  uana   onnj?  o'*jnj  onnx  D'oarn  n*j?  Sasn 

...  DnOJ,"  'lPS"in  pHS  1331  ain  »n^«n.  In  Lev.  19,  8  quoted  by  Levi 
b.  Jepheth  and  Samuel  al-Magrabi  (/.  c.)  as  proof  that  the  penalty  of  the 
dishonor  of  the  name  of  God  is  death  only  J"H3    punishment  is  mentioned.     The 


KARAITE    IIAI.AKAir  —  REVEL  63 

Based  on  this  Philonian-Karaite  interpretation  of 
Lev.  24,  16  is  the  view  of  the  early  Karaites  that  every 
antinomian  utterance  or  action  is  punished  by  death.  See 
Anan  (OiV'D,  /.  c.)  :  in  prx  'TO  ixS  mvo  io-o  xoxn  jxm 
bs  rrb  pom  xbtsp  a»rrD  "',  "n  xoxn  in  x\n  -"To  ixS  Nnms 
btn^;  so  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  267:  nivo  nson  xin  ppaon  3"D 
inspjn  no'ji  in  im  irove  ran  pita  n»i  T3  :Tnwo~rTO 
comp.  also  Alph.  372",  37311,  so  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi 
(MS.,  1086)  :    Dnb  "I3TJ    x1*   ncrx  ni¥»3  D-conn   isSm  •a  yn 

DX  D1NH  "31  niO  DB5P13  DnS  D^3  *3  lOK  'D  DHD   :  fllTpja    UETO 

nr  by  iT&n  s^m  nrvo  a*irp  mxa  ana  'iv  iTOxn  -ipk  mo"1 
lONttn  nr  '3  inx  ncxi  nsn  inivo  nxi  nn  'n  nan  »a  noKOO 
minn  rpvzaa  trna  ntrx  ■•o  by  m»*u  x-n  ^  nmx  Dwaon  n^xna 
iokdh  nr  a^irp  pjo  low  in  31  n  njrx  nxn  nison  '3  nox"'  'p  ix 
epjo  son  'n  nx  vby  -i»x  »a  pnan  "|~n  Sy:94  That  this  Karaite 

early  Karaites,  however,  took  JVO  to  mean  death  by  court,  DIN  »T3  flfVO, 
against  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  concept  ma  as  heavenly  visita- 
tion (comp.  Sifra  on  Lev.  23,  29;  Sifre  on  Num.  19,  13;  Moed  katan  280;  p. 
Bikkurim  2,  1;  Maim.,  naiCfl,  8,  1;  Ibn  Ezra  on  Gen.  17,  14;  Nahm.  on 
Lev.    18,   29   and   Abrabanel  on   Num.    15,   30).      See  Hadassi,  Alph.   266:    '3   ... 


t»a  omnia  :  -|mina  ms  -itrx  'n  DBts>»a  o<a"n  DiTbbib>  Ta  ma  'Sya  Sa 
...  naitmtia  oa  n»nn  onny  it  :  orpiBian  an'OBit?  omaSo  orrana.  Death  in 

ma  punishment  is  by  stoning  (ib.,  Alph.  267).  See  also  Ibn  Ezra  on  Lev. 
20,  20  and  Harkavy,  ]J}?S  niSOH  1ED,  141,  n.  14,  and  qD3  m<U  to  Mibhar,  Lev. 
37a,  letters  63,  69.  S.  Munk,  Palestine  (German  ed.  by  M.  Levy,  11,438)  is  to 
be  corrected  accordingly.  The  latter  Karaites  agree  with  Tradition;  see 
Mibhar,  Lev.   346;   minim,   Gen.   47b;  Lev.   566;   pJJ  ]i ,   125^;    pnfiM,   7. 

94  Every    antinomian    action    or    utterance    involves    the    dishonor    of    God's 
name    which    is,    according   to    the    Karaites,    punished    by    death.      See   Hadassi, 

Alph.   373    (149c):    ainaa  nrvrc  xinn  tr'xn  by  lmini  'n   otr  Mn  oxi  ... 

'Ul  1EH  iniSO  nxi  nra  'i"l  lan  ns  »3.  See  also  Book  of  Jubilees  30,  8-7. 
According  to  some  Karaites  failure  to  pray  is  also  punished  by  death  (in 
accordance    with     II     Chron.     15,     13).       So     Samuel    al-Magrabi     (MS.,     57a): 

Kin  p»ran  Tin  Syi  pnn  nnsa  n»y»i  o<-uiana  rocy  xSi  nS<enn  nx  atiym 

nn'ia  a«n  d»:b  Sa  ^y  nmx  anyn  »a  -iexe*  V't  o'cannn  b»i  ,nn»o  a»n. 


64  KARAITE    1IALAKAH REVEL 

view     is    not    due    to    their     fondness     for    exaggeration 
but     is     based     on     the     above-mentioned     Philonian     in- 
terpretation of  Lev.  24,    16  and  Num.    15,  30   (for   Num. 
15.   30.   see   Philo,   II,   252  and   404)    is  evident   from  the 
fact  that  a  similar  view  is  held  by  Maimonides  who,  in  dis- 
agreement with  the  talmudic  interpretation  (Sifre,  ad  loc; 
Horayot    8a;    Keritot    jb ;    comp.    Rashi,    Rashbam,    and 
Nahm..  ad  loc;  comp.  also  Mibhar,  Num.   15a;    min   "im 
Num.  22&),  refers  Num.   15,  30  to  all  antinomian  actions. 
See  D-3133  miD,  III,  41  (Eng.  translation  by  M.  Friedlander, 
London,    1904,   348-9):   "If  a  person  sins  presumptuously 
so  that  in  sinning  he  shows  impudence  and  seeks  publicity ; 
if  he  does  what  is  prohibited  by  the  Law,  not  only  because 
of  his  evil  inclination  but  in  order  to  oppose  and  resist  the 
Law.  he  'reproacheth  the  Lord'    (Num.   15.  30)   and  must 
undoubtedly    be    put    to    death.     .  . .   Even    if    an    Israelite 
eat>     meat     (boiled)     in     milk     or     wears     garments     of 
wool    and   linen,    or   rounds   off   the   corners   of   his   head, 
in  spite  against  the  Law,  in  order  to  show  clearly  that  he 
does  not  believe  in  its  truth,  /  apply  to  him  the  zvords  'he 
reproacheth  the  Lord'  and    (I  am  of  the  opinion)   that  he 
must  suffer  death  as  an  unbeliever.    . .      According  to  my 
opinion,  all  the  members  of  an  Israelitish  community  which 
has  insolently  and  presumptously  transgressed  any  of  the 
Divine  precepts  must  be  put  to  death.'95 

6.    According  to  Tradition,  cursing  parents  is  punished 
by  death    (Ex.  21,   17;  Lev.  20,  9)   only  when  the  Divine 

The  Karaites,  relying  on  Lev.  4,  2:  ni¥0  ^30. . .,  hold  (against  Tradition; 
see  Sifra  ad  loc.)  that  a  sin-offering  is  to  be  brought  for  the  involuntary- 
transgression  of  any  law.  See  Pinsker  II,  73  (the  meaning  of  this  passage 
escaped  Poznanskj,  Karaite  Literary  Opponents  of  Saadia  Gaon.  66);  Mibhar, 
Lev.,  6b;   mm  in 3,   Lev.   ga;  pj?  ]i,    176a,  end.     See  also  Philo,   II,  246. 

>5  See  also  Maim.,  nSII ,  4.  10;  Z.  Chajes,  D'K»33  mm ,  Zolkiew  1836, 
lU     ff. 


KARAITE    IIAI.AKAI1 —  KKVEL  65 

name  is  used  (Sanhedrin  7,  12;  Mekilta  ad  loc).  Striking 
parents  is  punished  by  death  (Ex.  21,  15)  only  when  the 
blow  is  a  mwn  ha  VW  hdd  (Sanhedrin  10,  1;  Mekilta,  ad 
loc).  Death  for  the  latter  offense  is  by  strangulation  (/. 
c).  Philo  (Tischendorf,  Philonea,  77)  makes  death  the 
penalty  for  every  manner  of  insult  to  parents,  and  death  by 
stoning  the  penalty  for  striking  parents  (/.  c.  and  Frag., 
II,  629).  The  Karaites96  agree jvith  Philo_and  refer  Ex. 
21,  15  to  any  physical  violence  against  parents;  see  Mibhar, 
Exod.,  41/;:  mian  m  c»l"  pa  na»  ^o  ba  :  ioki  rax  na»i 
rman  na  pKU>  pai;  so  also  mimna,  Exod.,  70b  and  Samuel 
al  Magrabi,  ed.  Gitelsohn,  17.  Nor  do  the  Karaites 
in  Exod.  21,  17  condition  the  use  of  the  Divine  Name.  See 
Hadassi,  Alph.  272"  (103a?);  Mibhar,  Exod.  42a;  nna 
min  ,  Exod.  yob,  and  Samuel  al  Magrabi,  /.  c.,  19.  Thev 
agree  also  with  Philo  in  making  death  by  stoning  the 
penalty  for  violence  to  parents.  See  Hadassi^  Alph.  2671 
(102c)  and  rnin  ina,  Exod.  70b;  comp.  Samuel  al 
Magrabi.  ed.  Gitelsohn,  19.  Biichler,  MGWJ.,  L  (1906).  683. 

Philo  (II,  330;  but  see  Quaest.  in  Ex.  II,  §  6)  states 
that  distinction  is  to  be  made  in  punishment  between  insult 
to  a  public  officer  and  a  private  person.     Tradition  makes 

94  For  the  Samaritan  view  comp.  ZDMG.,  XLVII  (1893),  681.  Mark 
7,  10  ff.  and  Matthew  15,  5  ff.  (comp.  commentaries)  perhaps  refer  to  this 
older  interpretation  of  Exod.  21,  17:  that  every  manner  of  insult  to  parents 
is  punished  by  death.     Comp    Wunsche,  Neue  Beitidge,    iSr-6. 

The  Karaites  decry  what  they  falsely  ascribe  to  the  Rabbanites:  the 
opinion  that  punishment  is  inflicted  only  when  the  curse  ~r  blow  affected 
both    parents;     Hadassi,     Alph.,     249,     says:   ]"I!3V  mfD  loso   V2X   ~:!22  "p  l"nn 

nnx  n:n  vhbpw  ty  nSSpa  pi  nnx  naa  nrvac  r\n  rwv  iy  h^h  2"n  ia»N: 

so  also  Alph.  250°;  see  also  Salmon  b.  Jeroham  quoted  by  Neubauer,  A  us 
d.  Petcrsburger  Bibliothek,  in.  See  Sanhedrin,  856;  Mekilta  on  Exod.  21, 
1  7 :  \Sifra   on    I.t  v.   20,   9. 


66  KARAITE    IIAI.AKAH — REVF.L 

no  such  distinction."  This  view,  however,  is  found  among 
the  Karaites.  Jepheth  b.  AH  (quoted  in  Mibhar,  Exo  1. 
42k)  punishes  cursing  ibo  or  N^L":  with  death.  Hadassi 
(Alph.  343d)  states  that  cursing  a  righteous  Judgre  is  a 
capital  crime;  so  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (ed.  Gitelsohn. 
21)  who  also  states  (MS.,  147b)  that  even  the  cursing  of 
the  patriarch  of  a  tribe  or  family  is  punished  by  death. 

MARRIAGE   LAWS 

7.  The  issue  of  a  prohibited  alliance98  is  a  bastard 
("ITOO)  and  the  law  enjoins  concerning  him:  "?^?2  "ITOD  XT  N? 
'H  (Deut.  23.  3).  Tradition  (Yebamot  8,  3)  refers  it  to 
marriage.     Philo,  as  was  pointed  out  by  Ritter  (91,  n.  5;. 

97  Weiss,  Dor,  I,  126,  note,  relying  on  Kiddushin  66a :  ?N1B"3B>  Binfl 
SnJ  ]!121  ~Sf3  nnsi  ljn  N1H  "J3,  believes  this  to  have  been  the  Saddncean 
view  (the  nipSn  there  was  not.  as  Weiss  /.  c,  states,  in  accordance  with  Deut. 
22,  18,  but  because  Judah  (or  Eleazar;  see  Josephus,  Ant.  XIII,  10,  5)  was  a 
single  witness;  see  Pesahim  113b:  "X\X>b  iTIM  . . .).  See  also  Josephus,  C. 
Ap.,  II,  23  that  disobedience  to  the  high-priest  is  punished  like  impiety  toward 
God  (comp.  Ant.  IV,  8,  14).  It  is,  however,  possible  that  Josephus  had  in 
mind  the  law  of  Deut.  17,  12;  see  Gratz,  IIP,  no,  note  1;  comp.  Maim., 
Maim.,  WOn^B,    Sanhedrin,    10,    5:    1123S  njVO    [K1DO  |p»S]    mill  lM»n    pSl 

10x1  i»3H  msS  nrve  ioni  vrx  SSpon  3"ntr  loa  nnSyoi  pi  ira. 

98  Against  Geiger's  anti-traditional  interpretation  of  ITOfD  (Urschrift, 
54  ft. ;  350)  see  Rapoport,  mi.T  rfotM,  78  ff.  For  the  Septuagint  see 
Frankel,  Einfluss,  204,  and  for  Philo  see  Ritter,  91,  n.  5.  Most  of  the 
later  Karaites  agree  with  the  accepted  talmudic  interpretation  of  1TE0  (Sifre, 
II,  248;  Yebamot  4,  13;  Kiddushin  3,  12;  see  p.  Kiddushin  3,  2;  Tosafot 
Yebamot  49a,  J.  v.  pj?OB>;  Maim.,  HN'3  HID'M,  15.  «!  Frankel,  Grundlinien 
d.  mosaisch-talmudischen  Eherechts,  5,  n.  21  is  to  be  corrected  accordingly); 
see  Mibhar,  Deut.  19b;  so  also  pj?  \i ,  149c:  niD'S!3  iSlDn  1T00  Sin  HTWl 
nifl'ir  'a^nD  mi;?;  but  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  278^  (105(f)  and  Samuel  al- 
Magrabi,  ed.  Gitelsohn,  n,  1.  14.  For  a  peculiar  interpretation  of  the  concept 
1T0D  by  some  early  Karaites  as  referring  to  the  Chazars  see  Harkavy,  Semitic 
Studies   in    memory   of  Dr.   Kohut,    Berlin    1897,   246-7. 


KARAITE    11ALAKAII — RIvVI'X  67 

interprets  this  verse,  verses  2,  4  (II,  261),  and  v.  9  (II 
393)  to  mean  that  the  "ITO©  is  not  to  mingle  with  the  com- 
munity of  Israel  and  does  not  refer  to  marriage.  In  his 
exposition  of  v.  9,  (II,  393)  he  says:  "...  tealeiv  eig  eKKXqoiav 
nai  fiercHhAovat  deiuv  "kar/wv,  ov?  Oe/icg  rovg  avro^Oovag  kui  evvrarptdag 
tepofyavTeioQai  .M  This  view,  as  Samuel  al  Magrabi  informs  us, 
was  held  by  many  Karaites  (MS.,  91b)  imnai  "lE'X  "D  y~n 
*wn  Sy  n^jon  nxr  Dnvp  tdh  an  \>"\  Disarm  311  nyn  Sy  xin 
...  nwa  rrm  nay  yrrvb  ina  jn:  |«w  'a  xini  runs  dipt  rpfv  <a 
nta  i3iv"i  bax  nb'yan  13  nw  x?  kit  xb  12  notwn  ba  anynai 
tram  noixn  niSnpai  ni^oi  D'onn  nisina  rnnDtrm  nuanpn  mnya 

D'u  nnxi  «a  nox  ~inx  ~iS  bnpa  1x13s  xS  tits  "ityxnoxDO  jtxi 

ntnpo  1x2. 

This  is  the  view  of  many  early  Karaites.  See 
Hadassi,  Alph.  365  (140/;)  :  mny  jo  "6i:n  nS"1  bt5>  BBPDn  pyi* 
iron!)  :  nn:  nib:  it  jora  tidx  it?  baei  n-u  joi  rs  ncrx  pi 
jnnnnb  Sx-itr'D  nnxb  pan  c"1  dxi  ...  anpn  yir  Dn^o  oni»xi  DHiivn 
-il"xd  nnnnb  nnnb  DDin"  Sipbpi  Diiya  anamaa  ana"1  onoy 

nvo   lay   ftwbl  aina;    so    also    Alph.    3731    (148c?). 

Aaron  b.  Joseph  (Mibhar,  Deut.  196)  states  that  Sahl  b. 
Masliah  (second  half  of  the  tenth  century)  held  that 
marriage  with  a  "TOD  is  not  forbidden :  naib  Dyo  TiyT  xbl 
["iTBon  nx]  uri|T  bx-lL",  psn^  dxl"  brtDim.  Sahl  b.  Masliah, 
evidently,  also  interpreted  bnpa  ~TO»  xa"1  xb,  as  did  Philo, 
Hadassi,  and  the  Karaites  mentioned  by  Samuel  al  Magrabi, 
to  mean  that  the  "TOO  is  not  allowed  to  mingle  in  the  com- 
munity.100 See  also  Mibhar,  /.  c. :  tan  baa:  *n  bnpa  X3"  xb 
nab  pxicja  jiaam ;  comp.  epa  riTB,  ad  /oc. 

99  See  Michaelis,  Afoj.  tfrchr,  II,  §  139;  Ewald,  Alterth.  des  Volkes 
Israel,    247;    comp.    also    Rapoport,     Ifflfll    n?nj  ,    46. 

100  1-^e  interpretation  given  by  Geiger  ( 10ri3  1V1N ,  IV,  21-2)  to  this 
view  of  Sahl  is  forced  and  unnecessary.  Geiger's  reference  (/.  c,  22)  to 
Sahl's    opinion    quoted     in     Mibhar,     Deut.     6b.    has    no    bearing    on     his    view 


OS  KARAITE    UALAKAII REVEL 

8.  In  the  exposition  of  the  law  of  Deut.  21,  10-15  con- 
cerning marriage  with  a  female  captive  of  war,  Tradition 
makes  no  distinction  between  a  married  woman  and  the 
unmarried  (Sifre,  ad  loc;  Kiddushin  21b:  l^DNl  —  nt}>K 
L-\x  rwK).  So  also  Josephus,  Ant.  IV,  8,  23.  The  Karaites 
hold  that  this  law  refers  only  to  the  case  when  the  captive 

here.  Sahl's  interpretation  there  of  DON  D'inn  Dinn  (Deut.  7,  2;  comp. 
B|D3  tWO  to  Mibhar,  Deut.  6b,  letter  115)  is  held  by  many  Rabbanites;  see 
e.  g.  Nahm.  on  Deut.  20,  10.  The  Karaite  anti-traditional  view  (see  Kid- 
dushin 3,  13;  Yebamot  II,  5  and  parallels!  that  children  born  to  a  Tew  from  a 
Gentile  woman  are  considered  to  be  Jews  which  caused  the  early  Karaites 
to  interpret  N'SinS  in  Ezra  10,  3  as  referring  to  the  mothers  onlv  (Pinsker, 
II,   23,   n.    12;    Geiger.    /.   c;  see   also   Benjamin    Nahawendi,    pi3'33  riMB'O,   6b: 

'a»    orva»   otr  ^7  x^x  csip:   x1-  dv  'Sa  »aa  hviDKi    TO"iaj>  nuaa  -r.x 

0nr3   "lSl3ffi     n1^':    ^D    SOSinS;     similarly    Hadassi,     Alph.     366       (141*1):   D1W1 

d»  -y  x-ip;i  it  sin  sinew  nnaa  ntrxi  b»«  new  mnyn  ;o  n^atr  cnr'ri 
nam  vax;  yet  he  adds:     D'tra  '2  tosinS   awa   mneen    ninaa   '32  bjn 

nnrs  nSiam,  so  also  Alph.  365"1  (1406))  goes  back  to  talmudic  times  and 
was  held  by  Jacob  of  'S0123  HE3  (p.  Yebamot  2,  6;  p.  Kiddushin  3,  end;  G. 
rab.,  7,  3  and  parallels)  who  seems  to  have  been  suspected  of  some  ni3'»  (see 
above,  note  73).  See  also  the  early  Bible  critic  (ed.  by  Schechter),  JQR., 
XIII,    362,    lines    22-25,    and    note    on    p.    371. 

The  assertion  of  M.  Friedmann  (Beth  Talmud,  I,  106)  that  the  Karaites, 
like  Tradition  (Yebamot  8,  4.  b.  ib.,  76b  ff.  and  parallels),  interpret  Deut. 
23,  4:  n'ilOy  StSl  »3WJ?  is  erroneous.  All  Karaites  attack  this  traditional 
view.  See  EHas  b.  Abraham  (Pinsker,  II,  105);  Mibhar  and  min  ina 
ad  he;  pj>  p.  1466;  i49d  ff.;  \TvH»  nVIX,  93c;  D'pHS  miK,  17b;  A. 
Firkowitsch,  n»3an  Dmn  (appendix  to  the  C'TJ"  inzrD.  Goslow  183s).  5ia; 
comp.,  however,  Hadassi,  Alph.  323'  (119M.  The  legitimacy  of  David  (de- 
scendant of  Ruth  the  Moabitess)  they  save  by  asserting  that  Deut.  23,  4  refers 
only  to  those  who  do   not   embrace  Judaism. 

Schorr  Q'lSnn,  IV,  43)  claims  that  Maimonides  is  inconsistent  in  con- 
sidering (n»'3  niD'X,  12,  18;  not  12,  9)  the  law  of  n'MDJ  xSl  '3113?  as 
♦  3»DO  HCW  naSn  as  this  law  is  disputed,  and  quotes  Yebamot  8,  4;  PTJ  CXI 
nawn  ti»  and  Tosafot,  »&.,  77b,  *.  v.  naSn .  Schorr  apparently  overlooked  the 
fact  that  jnS  BX1  and  Tosafot  by  him  quoted  refer  to  the  question  of 
rVDIIKl   PinSia    and    have    nothing   to    do    with    the   law    of   n»3\nj?  K7I  »310J?. 


Karaite  iiai.ak  \n     i< i :\  i ; i .  69 

was  unmarried  or  a  widow.  See  Hadassi,  Alph.  281  ;  Mib- 
har,  Lev.  34a,  and  Deut.  17a  and  spa  n~rc,  ad  loc;  nmn  nna, 
Deut.  24a  (but  see   py  P,   I47</).     So  also  ln^N  mix,  926: 

nbapn  ^ya  nyn  ■•ab  xS  ....  rUobx  N-ncr  ma&>a  lroan  n»N  ph 
^j!)  niL"\s  pKB>n»KB>;  so  also  Abraham  b.  Josiah  Jerushalmi 
in  his  fON  nncx  (Goslow  1846),  24a.  Samuel  al  Magrabi 
(MS.  222a-b)  states :  nr  p|Kan  xS  nnann  mtrya  nOKD  nr  *a  yn 
....mDiKno  anSirc  ix  rnn  Toxra  xin  dx  b»n  nSya  nrx  ^a  nmx 
noxi  rri>j?  ainan  niaDai  nxn  na11  ncrxa  ipsji  vrjy  nx  n^rv  nDi 
nprn  njyta  na  px  ivbnn  nxr  iS  ncx'  n^na  ij*ny  ncrx  'n<  "6ix 
nr  Sy  nvpn  'it  "&oia  "a  dji  ....  unnj  oix  Tyn  it  tox  *a 
ainan  pan  ■•aa  n^y  ;yoS  n-or:n  n^xn  ny  nannn  amp  pjyn. 
That  this  is  also  the  view  of  Philo  was  shown  by  Ritter,  75. 

9.  The  penalty  of  adultery  with  a  married  woman  is 
according  to  Tradition  (Sanhedrin  10,  1;  Sifra  DT'inp,  9 
(ed.  Weiss,  92a)  strangulation.  Many  Karaites,  however, 
hold  that  the  law  of  Deut.  22,  24  applies  not  only  to  the 
betrothed,  but  also  to  a  married  woman;  the  punishment 
being  stoning  in  both  cases.  So  Samuel  al-Magrabi  speak- 
ing  of    adultery   and    its   punishment    says  (MS.,  6a)  :  DX1 


noKOO  nr  uyT  <a  a^axa  anrnn  1?  -leio  anj-nn  tx  ncix  ncx1' 
anix  DnSpDi  Kinn  "pyn  nyi"  Sx  DiTje>  nx  onxvmi  ni'-nxcn  by 
ntfniKbn  *a  caeca  ni'-nxcm  nSiyan  pa  pnan  x3  ^  mm  D^axa 
L'"x  ncrx  nxipj;  see  also  L.  Cohn,  Des  Samuel  al-Magrebi 
Abhandlung  iibcr  die  Pflichten  d.  Pricster  u.  Richter,  Berlin 
1907,   10,  and  Mibhar  on  Lev.  18,  20  (34a),  and  RDa  nvc, 


ad  loc.,  letter  a^n :  nbiya  pa  naxun  trw  nvx  bvrw*  naa  d:i  ... 
trx  ntrx  nxnpj  nemxen  dj  nnc  nnx  yc:y  ntnixo  pa;  comp. 
also  n~nn  nna.  Lev.  586  and  ]iy  p,  194c?.  That  this 
is  also  the  view  of  Philo  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he 


yO  KARAITE   HAIAKAH REVEL 

sets  death  by  stoning  even  for  the  unmarried  harlot;101  see 
II,  308,  where  he  says:  naktv  iropvT/v  Kara  tov  tepov  Juoyov  ov  rrapa- 
de%lTai   >/   iroXtTBia  ...  ilc  '/via/  nrr   km    ^r/fjm  nut  KOIVOV  [uaaua  Kara'/  iroOu.102 

,01  See  Ritter's  comment  on  this  law  of  Philo  (p.  92);  but  see  Book 
of  Jubilees  20,  4  which  also  seems  to  punish  unchastity  of  an  unmarried 
woman  with  death  (by  burning,  in  accordance  with  Gen.  38,  24).  The 
early    Karaites    also    considered    unchastity    of    a     H'UE    to    be    CpN'J  ;    see    Sal- 


mon b.  Jeroham  quoted  by  Pinskcr,  II,  62 :  ilTl  "in'OJ?  ritTX3  :  HX3n  xS  SSoi 
I'JI-'in  T"n2  ;  comp.  also  the  opinion  of  Saul  b.  Anan  quoted  there  (the 
authenticity  of  the  N!2Tp?3  is,  however,  disputed;  comp.  also  Poznariski,  "11MN 
^K1B«,    VI,    88a).      See   also    the    Samaritan    reading   of   Deut.    23,    18:   irnn   nS 

ntPTp  (comp.  Klumel,  Mischpatim,  p.  VI).  See  also  Briill,  Jahrbiicher,  III 
(1877).  39,  n.  104.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  the  Karaites,  in  fixing 
stoning  as  the  penalty  for  adultery,  were  influenced,  as  in  many  other 
instances  (Steinschneider,  Beschneidung  d.  Araber  u.  Mohammedaner,  26-7; 
id.,  Polemische  Literatur  d.  Juden,  398,  n.  1;  Wreschner,  41,  44),  by  the 
Mohammedan  law  which  also  punishes  adultery  with  stoning;  comp.  ZDMG., 
LIU     (1899),     161. 

1,12  Noteworthy  in  this  connection  is  the  agreement  between  the  view 
held  by  the  earliest  Karaite  authorities  (Anan  and  Benjamin  Nahawendi) 
and  the  practice  in  vogue  among  the  Alexandrian  Jews  in  the  first  century 
B.    C.      I    refer    to    Tosefta    Ketubbot    4,    9;    Baba    mesi'a    104a;    p.    Ketubbot 

4,    8:  pitrn  ]o  neuini  X3  (or  ins)  nnx  d»»3  panpn  xm:D3S«  >h  i*wa 

which  seems  to  indicate  that  the  smjD^Sx  '33  considered  betrothal  not 
so  binding  as  f'KltPJ  (A.  Briill,  Fremdsprachliche  Redensarten  in  den 
Talmuden  u.  Midraschim,  Leipzig  1869,  32,  note,  wrongly  translates  this 
passage:  "Wenn  die  Alexandriner  sich  Frauen  angelobten,  nahmen  sie  sie 
gerade  von  der  Strasse  weg.").  Biichler  (Festschrift  zu  Israel  Lewy's 
siebsigstem  Geburtstag,  Breslau  191 1,  123,  n.  3)  justly  remarks:  "Vielleicht 
war  hierin  hellenistischer  Einfluss  wirksam"  (Biichler,  /.  c.,  thinks  that 
the  words  (or  »n»3^}  HBinS  'DJSnCD1?  were  inserted  in  the  PI3W3  "IDC 
to  make  the  ]»DT1N  unbinding.  But,  then,  what  was  the  purpose  of  the 
]»D1*1N  and  of  the  n31H3  ?).  Philo  also  states  (II,  311)  that  there  are 
many  who  do  not  consider  unchastity  with  a  betrothed  woman  to  be 
adultery,  though  he  himself  agrees  with  Tradition  (comp.  Frankel,  Grand- 
linien  d.  mos.-tal.  Eherechts,  XXIV  ff.)  that  bethrothal  is  as  binding  as 
marriage    (ib.,    and    II,    229).      See    also    p.    Hagigab    2,    2:     D'TH'     '33     1'H 

□sSvk  aw  ♦dvt«  'no   ij?  :  natspn   HmaDaSuS   nhmn   d'Sb-ito  :  panra 

where  'D11X  (p.  Sanhedrin  6,  6  reads:  'tya  ,  but  see  Halevy,  D'JItTXin  mill, 
Ic,     478,     note)     is     perhaps     an     allusion    to     the     view   of   the    N'"n3D37t<  '33 


KARAITE    IIAI.AKAH — RKYKI.  /I 

10.  Philo  (II,  310)  states  that  violation  of  a  widow 
or  divorced  woman  is  a  crime  approaching  adultery  and 
the  court  shall  decide  upon  the  punishment  whether  it  be 
physical  chastisement  or  pecuniary  fine.108  Tradition,  as 
Ritter  (90-91)  observes,  makes  no  distinction  between  a 
divorced  woman  or  widow  and  a  woman  who  has  never 
been  married.  A  view  similar  to  that  of  Philo  is  held  by 
the  Karaites,  some  of  them  even  making  carnal  intercourse 
with  a  widow  or  divorced  woman  a  capital  crime  while  most 

concerning  f'DIIX  as  not  being  binding.  This  view  of  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  was  held  also  by  the  earliest  Karaites  who  maintained  that  the  betrothed 
can  sever  their  connections  without  a  writ  of  divorce  and  that,  in  general, 
betrothal  does  not  have  the  force  of  marriage.  See  Anan  (  Q!"l"D  ,  ed. 
Harkavy,  118)  "jnS  xS  nSj?2  xS  <X  XB^X  PlSjDl  Htt'X  C"X  np'  '3  ;  X£X  xp 
Pnt3B»^  PI'S  N\1D  DHJ?21  mrv"D  1ED;  so  also  Benjamin  Nahawendi,  f\»VU 
J'0'32,  5b:  np<  <3  'Jtt'  »">pOn  tSU  JPD  BHB  vhvf  DHp  JH  mtSniKO  n\hv 
r6iya  »h  MTU  nSyai  n»M  CN;  so  also  Hadassi,  Alph.  365  (141a);  comp. 
also  ]iy  p,    154c. 

Geiger,  relying  on  the  view  of  Beth  Shammai:  niDHS  X^X  |'JNOO  |*X 
(Yebamot  13,  1),  claims  that  the  older  halakah  distinguished  in  a  similar 
manner  between  ^DlIX  and  ]'X1t?3  (Jild.  Zcitschr.,  II,  97;  Nachg.  Schr.,  V, 
Ileb.,  162).  As  the  marriage  of  a  minor  by  her  mother  or  brothers  is 
only  a  Rabbinic  institution,  the  view  of  Beth  Shammai  concerning  jlX'B 
does  not  prove  much.  Hadassi,  Alph.  250^  (96b)  and  334-5  (1230^)  falsely 
states  that  according  to  the  Rabbanites  a  minor  given  to  marriage  by  her 
father  (Deut.  22,  16)  is  free  to  annul  her  marriage  through  ]1NT3  and 
reads  in  Yebamot  108a:  '2X  'JlEHptt'  ptPV^pa  'B'EX  'X  ...  JIX'B  1PIT  'X 
!  ...  '0X1  (Holdheim,  mBMXn  1EX0,  S3,  note,  erroneously  ascribes  this  view 
to  Elias  Bashyazi;  see  to  the  contrary,  his  liT7X  JTHX,  D'CJ  '",  ch.  2). 
For  another  misrepresentation  of  a  traditional  law  by  Hadassi  see  above, 
note  96;   see  also   Bacher,  MGH'J.,   XL    (1896),   21,  n.   5. 

103  Biichler's  suggestion  (MGH'J.,  L  (1906),  674,  note)  that  this  law 
of  Philo  goes  back  to  the  more  ancient  view  (represented  by  Beth  Shammai) 
allowing  divorce  only  in  case  of  the  wife's  adultery  and  considering  the 
divorced  woman  to  be  still  to  some  extent  an  C'X  PCX,  is  not  plausible  as 
it  does  not  account  for  Philo's  view  concerning  njttSx .  Moreover,  Philo 
and  the  Karaites  do  not  share  the  view  of  Beth  Shammai  and  allow  divorce 
for  any  cause.     See,   for  Philo,   Ritter,   70,  note   1   and,  for  the  Karaites,  above. 


/2  KARAITE    HALAKAH REVEL 

of  them  are,  like  Philo,  satisfied  that  a  special  penalty  be 
imposed  on  the  offender,  such  as  the  court  may  deem  best, 
See  Hadassi,  Alph.  278:  njo^xn  ny  niiTn  xin  'an  pbn  man  --- 

mo  osl"o  vbv  D,-rono  inn  •••  l^yoi  ww  biiJ  nerun  di?  in 
vbn  '3  fir  :  iniin  -ioxn  »?onan  Snj  db>k  'jb>  n:xnpn  crx  -tra  jn  o 
ni"x  nx  sixr*  -icrx  noxt>'  pi  :  baa  ntrx  nmn  ~nyi  no  o'a-i  d^o  baa 
ynbm  warn  "nv  »ba  n^y  xn  <a  no  xinc>  pa  sn  Mine*  pa  'ui  l*"x 
nniDK  no  in  enai  trx  »b>j  ■•Jibs  to  jn  nertf  njoSx  nxr  p 
c."\s  ^n-si  ^an  <?a  jn  nmoni;  so  also  py  p,  158c:  rfrwam 
in  coann  n^o  naiap  nrxtr  <a  Sy  *ix  njoSx  ix  nt5>na  xti:? 
...mo  3"ino  xiriL"  i"\x  ntrxn  xnn  pna  jirby  Kan  jmx;  so  also 
Samuel  al  Magrabi  (MS.  86b)  :  ^  b"t  D'ODnno  nxp  "iox  DJi 
^»yrp  nx  [qsun  xS]  mnixn  nxn  nn  dj  d-djdj  ntyvum  niobsn 
nmo  Tirn  pixjo  nai^n  o  tnynm  pnTp  «ba  ana. 

11.  Tradition  (Sotah  1,  1;  Sifre  on  Num.  5,  13) 
makes  warning  by  husband  and  subsequent  nvnD  of  wife 
with  the  man  against  whom  she  has  been  warned  condition 
precedent  to  subjection  of  the  woman  to  ordeal  of  Num., 
5,  15  ff.101  Philo,  speaking  of  this  law  (II,  308),  says 
that  in  case  the  husband  suspects  his  wife  of  adultery  they 
are  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  court  in  the  Holy  City 
(comp.  Sotah  1,  4)  and  if  the  court  is  undecided  the  woman 
is  to  submit  to  the  ordeal ;  Philo,  evidently,  not  considering 
necessary  suspicion  of  a  particular  man,  warning  (^Jp  )  and 
HTno.105  This  is  also  the  view  of  the  Karaites.  See 
Hadassi,  Alph.  328,  end  and  239;  Mibhar,  Num.  50:  -inn 
mm.  Num.  ja;  so  also  p)}  p ,  1576:     *bv2    nya    nynn   pxi 

104  One   of   these    must   be   before    witnesses    (So{ah    i,    i).      The   accepted 
norm    (Maim.,    riBID,    I,    1-2)    requires    witnesses    for    both. 

,ws  Ritter     (pp.     81-85)     discusses    this    law    as    given    by    Philo;     he    fails, 
however,    to    notice    this    essential    deviation    of    Philo    from    Tradition. 


KARAITE    HAI.AKAII — KKVI-I.  71 

"-irn  "i:p  ny  nDnvL"  onoiKi  n&ra  "lurtpa  mnwB>  noxtf  n^apn 
...nipBTib  'ixi  txi  ir-mD.106 

12.  Tradition  takes  Deut.  22,  20:  lain  rvn  nnx  DX 
to  mean  that  in  case  adultery  during  betrothal  has  been 
established  by  the  testimony  of  witnesses,  penalty  is  death 
(v.  21)  in  accordance  with  Deut.  22,  24  (Sifre,  ad  loc; 
Ketubbot  46a;  comp.  Frankel,  Der  gerichtliche  Bezveis,  49). 
Philo,  in  his  exposition  of  this  law  (II,  313),  says  that  if 
the  husband's  charge  be  found  true,  the  parents  of  the 
woman  are  guilty  of  having  deceived  the  husband  at  the 
time  of  the  betrothal.  Philo,  evidently,  held  that  the  accu- 
sation of  the  husband,  whose  substantiation  involves  death, 
was  unchastity  before  betrothal™  This  is  also  the  view  of 
most  of  the  Karaites.  See  Hadassi,  Alph.  366  (141&-C) 
that  the  mere  absence  of  the  D^ina  is  sufficient  to  convict 
her:  DX  "ny  injyu"  ....  n^cL"  yivn  bv  \%mb  nStr  DX1  ax  D^Ti" 
nwn  ^y  nbwn  nx  KTin  nya  D^xvojn  ix  axni  axn  lra^  ab 

}va  mpi)  cSina  tinso  xS  "a  nntrxi  ntvyna  tjoi  pyis  Kim 

:  mjHn  X"n  na^n  n^poa  nxxoj  xti  xSi  ntatyn  nx  ccpa^L" 
mj»n  nx  lx-Yim  :  myj^  D^ina  ixvoj  xS  :  ioxl"  loyta ;  see 
also  Alph.  365  (140c)  :  ikhsi  rtScL"  l*"  dxi  DT'Hn  ltjnT  mr' 
D-bina  nS  ixvoj  xb  iann  rrn  ncx  axi  ...  nT  noxm  'Hi  rii>DB>n 
px  dxi  ■■•  itst  pit  Sy  D^yi  "Sine  ix  nao  ?ao  ix  xti  py  naio  ex 

,<)6  In  case  the  suspected  woman  refuses  to  submit  to  this  ordeal  she 
is,  according  to  Tradition  (Sotah  i,  3),  to  be  divorced  and  forfeits  her 
dowry.  Some  Karaites  consider  such  refusal  prima  facie  evidence  of  her 
guilt  and  say  she  is  to  be  put  to  death  as  an  adulteress;  see  lrVX   PHIS,  98a: 

nnna  rvriBO  ruttoi  nnsy  mpaS  nx2  as  d:bx;  comp.  ib.,  gSb.    ah  Karaites 

agree  that  in  case  the  woman  confesses  her  guilt,  it  is  sufficient  to  convict 
her;   see   Mibhar,   Num.    5a:      niMtt'l      iirQinS      imi»      [nn;<TB*]     MHin     CN1 

dhj?  hxed  n»s  »a  pa:n   toni   njinj   D»*npn  'edh  nyi^i;  comp.  also  nro 

mm,    Num.    7b;  pj?  p,    is6rf;  lrv^X  nmx,  986  and  above,  nota  82. 

iot  gee  Werke  Philos,  II,  207,  n.  3.  Ritter  (p.  77)  overlooked  this 
deviation    of   Philo    from    Tradition.      For   the   view   of   Joscphus,    see   Weyl,   87, 

105. 


74  KARAITE    IIALAKAII REVEL 

min  pia  n^pD  km  nTino  nr  nSi  nt.  See  also  Mibhar,  Lev. 
38/;;  comp.  «p3  itvb,  ad  /or.:  pn  \s-i^"  run  d:  "irvo  nnc  ... 
D,Lnm  iKSDj  xb  nsxzi  oxi  b&nty  nbina  Sy  yn  dl"  x-vion  htd 
dx  \xjn  S'JDn  ^2  iraM  n"2  nnsn  nb^PD   sinsn   nt1   rn  mjnb 


piprmn  "inx  ix  pBTixn  dtip  niun;1"  so  also  i&.  to  Mibhar, 
Deut.  19a,  letter  77.  So  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (Ms.,  97a)  : 
"idkdo  pirn  nn  ni:n  rrby  cny  ^^3  xSx  mnn  xb  -3  onvp  ioxi 
ill  nblT  fir  ainan  "a  ninan.  The  later  Karaites  agree  with 
Tradition  that  ncgatio  virginitatis  is  not  prima  facie 
evidence  of  her  guilt.  See  irrbx  mix,  g6ab :  rrny  span  DX1 
toan  xb  ox  d:cx  .  mo  nb  px  psjriKn  dtip  nww  ix  nrmi" 
xb  dx  mo  bsk>»  rib  pxK>  nnn  Dm  nos  onn  .  D'oann  lpbn: 
span  xk"  ;or  ba^'nost  onvpi  ...  panxn  -inx  nnyw  nT 
na^rn  ptrnxn   -ins  nnw  nprnn  spn  prnxn  amp  nnrTB>  rrx~i 

108   Related    to    this    Pliilonian-Karaite    interpretation    of    Deut.    22,    20    is 
the    Karaite    interpretation    of    Lev.    21,    9.       Tradition    refers    this    law    to    a 
betrothed   or   married   daughter   of   a    priest    (Sifra,   ad  loc.;   Sanhedrin   506    ff. ; 
Ps.-Jon.,    ad   loc).      The    Karaites   maintain   that   this  law — HEIU'  for   unchastity 
in    a    priest's    daughter — refers    also    to    the    unmarried.       See    Hadassi,    Alph. 
330    (izid);    Mibhar,    Lev.    38b:     "1210   airOfl   nn:E3    D'Sipn  njnni     ...;    so 
also  min  "ins,    Lev.    586.      Samuel     al-Magrabi    (L.      Cohn,     Des     Samuel     al- 
Magrebi    Abhandlung     iiber     die     Pflichten     d.     Priester     u.     Richter,   9)     even 
asserts    that    this    law    applies    also    to     jHD  JS    guilty    of    unchaste    conduct   with 
a   woman   married   or   unmarried;    comp.    also    Mibhar,    Gen.    60a   and    f|D3  flTD 
ad   loc.   and   to    Mibhar,    Lev.    34a,    letter   232.      This   is   also   the   view   of   Philo 
(?     Hoffmann,     Leviticus,     II,     90)     and     Josephus     {Ant.,     IV,    8,     23;    comp. 
Ritter,     81;     P.     Griinbaum,    Die    Priestergesetze    bei    Flavins    Josephus,    Halle 
1887,    18,    n.    2;    Weyl,    106).      Comp.    also   B.    Beer,   Das  Buck    d.   Jubilden   u. 
sein      Verhdltniss     su     den     Midraschim,      Leipzig      1856,     58.        The    view     of 
Biichler    (MGU'J.,    L    (1896),    681,    n.    2)    that    this    was    also    the    view    of    R. 
Eliezer    (Sanhedrin    510)    is   very    improbable;    comp.    also    Weiss,    Dor,    I,    151. 
For  the  mode  employed   in  the  execution  of  Ji13  H2  (fpBTI  CN2  ;  Lev.  21, 
9)       which,     according    to     Rab    Joseph     (Sanhedrin     52b),     was     taken  by  the 
Sadducees    (so    also    Josephus,    Ant..    IV,    8,    23)  literally  (comp.    Brull,    JV3 
TloSn  ,    IV,    7    ff.;    Weiss,    Dor,    I,    151;    Biichler,    /.    c,    549    ff.,    557    ff-)    'he 
Karaites    disagree    among    themselves;     see     Samuel     al-Magrabi,     /.     c;    comp. 
also    Hadassi,    Alph.    324  p  . 


KARAITE   HALAKAII — REVEL  75 

mo  BDB>»;  the  later  Karaites  thus  disagreeing  among  them- 
selves only  as  to  the  mode  of  proof  of  the  woman's  guilt  or 
innocence  after  betrothal.108 

13.  Num.  36,  6-10  provides  that  when  a  man  dies 
without  male  issue  and  his  daughter  inherits  his  property, 
the  heiress  is  to  marry  only  within  her  tribe  so  that  the 
allotment  of  one  tribe  might  not  pass  over  to  another.  Ac- 
cording to  talmudic  interpretation  (Baba  batra  120a  ff . ; 
comp.  Pseudo-Jonathan  on  verse  6 :    xS   'n    TpEH    amnz    x~i 

nns&x  nnb  \nbx  Kins   aib-a  "frn  oip-ob  prnm  umb  and 

Geiger,  Urschrift,  447)  this  rule  applied  only  to  the  •'genera- 
tion of  the  conquest."  while  according  to  Samuel  (B.  b.  120a) 
even  in  the  case  of  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  it  was  not 
a  command,  but  merely  counsel :  ainan  DXT'n  mita  nvy 
(but  comp.  Ritter,  97,  n.  I,  and  Ibn  Ezra,  ad  loc,  v.  8). 

Philo110  states  that  in  case  a  daughter  inherits  she  is  to 
marry  one  of  her  relatives  (based  perhaps  on  Num.  36. 
11),  in  the  absence  of  which  she  must  at  least  not  marry 
out  of  her  tribe,  thus  applying  the  law  of  Num.  36.  6-10 
to  all  generations. 

109  According  to  the  scholion  of  Megillat  Taanit  (ch.  4)  the  Boethusians 
interpreted  n^nCH  ItTlEI  literally  (tTOO).  Rapoport  ( nCXl  DlSc  nm  ,  14); 
Geiger  (Urschrift,  148)  and  Ritter  (133  ff.;  comp.  Buchler,  I.  c,  680,  note; 
comp.  Weiss,  Dor.,  I,  117)  consider  this  report  unauthentic  as  this  view  is 
held  also  by  R.  Eliezer  b.  Jacob  (Sifre,  II,  237;  Ketubbot  46a);  see, 
however,    Halevy,    D'iltTinn  Jinn,    Ic,    415-18. 

"°  See  Treitel,  MGWJ.,  XLVII  (1903),  409.  Philo  explains  also  the 
law  of  yibbum  (Deut.  25,  5-1 1)  as  a  means  that  the  allotment  of  one  might 
not  pass  over  to  another  (II,  443;  Ritter,  69,  n.  3  errs  in  asserting  that 
Philo  mentions  nowhere  the  law  of  D13»)  which  is  also  the  prevailing  view 
among  the  later  Karaites  (comp.  Poznanski,  REJ.,  XLV  (1902),  62).  Josephus 
also  considers  the  law  of  Num.  36,  7  as  applying  to  all  times  (Ant.,  IV,  7, 
5;  comp.  Ritter,  967).  This  view  is  shared  also  by  the  author  of  Tobit  6, 
12-13;  comp.  M.  Rosemann,  Studien  rum  Buche  Tobit,  Berlin  1894.  3  ff-  and 
F.     Rosenthal,     Vier    apokryphische    Biicher,    Leipzig    1885,     116,    note. 


y6  KARAITE    IIAI.AKAH REVEL 

The  Karaites,  like  Philo,  apply  the  law  of  Numb.  36, 
6-10  to  all  times;  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  260  (99a);  Mibhar. 
ad  loc.  (33a).  and  mimna,  Num.,  50/?:  nbro  r\vhv  m  hy\ 
ny  ...  nSnpn  'b]!2  ioko  pn1  s^  p  Si?  nnr6  "inn  "nonnb  xa 
nSnjn  3iDn  3"n«  k6k  nnyi'-S  niVDnt5>riONK>;  comp  also  py  p, 
171&;  so  also  Samuel  al  Magrabi  (MS.,  263a)  :  ran  o  yn 
"2  jnb  ibo'  &6  ps  rPrno  nB>vT  pS  mnrp  dx  nnpno  nrfon 
DM>n  nbiTa  jnt  |<"6  ninn'  xS  poS  pSi"  MB>n  n^wo  d^'jS  i\t 
...  ^ntrn  nbirb  mnnn  nprun  sxni  jniE  inx  jms  tm. 

14.  The  law  of  Lev.  21,  2-3  enjoining  the  priests  not 
to  defile  themselves  by  approaching  a  dead  body  says,  "But 
for  his  kin  that  is  near  to  him.  ..."  (v.  2a),  llNK'S  QX  o 
iPx  nnpn. 

The  talmudic  interpretation  finds  in  the  words  DX  "a 
Ytitxh  support  for  the  tradition  that  a  priest  is  to  defile  him- 
self by  approaching  the  body  of  his  wife111  (Sifra,  ad  loc: 
Kin  "pnN  "ixi"  'JB>  iriL"S  xSx  n«B>  p«;  Yebamot  22b).  The 
Karaites,   rejecting  this  interpretation  of  rise  ,112  forbid  the 


111  See  Maim.,  hlX,  2,  7:  O'lBID  '12113  vh»  ilS  KOBO  13W  ;  comp. 
commentaries  and  flStPB  D!"lS,  ib.,  2,  1.  Weiss  (Dor,  I,  46,  note)  quotes: 
ima  Sj,'3  lnWD'Bl  ...  (Zebahim  100a;  Sifra,  Emor,  1;  Semahot,  ch.  4) 
as  proof  that  the  law  of  lDtt'xS  p3  riNOlB  was  not  universally  accepted. 
Weiss  apparently  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  wife  of  ]PI3n  i]DV  died 
riDEH  31J73  (/.  c.)  and  defilement  would  have  barred  him  from  participation 
in  the  nDB  pip,  whereas  Wtl'XI  JH3  11XB1B  is,  according  to  many,  only  fllBH; 
see  Zebahim,  /.  c. ;  and  Tosafot  Sotah  3a,  s.  v.  nS ;  comp.  Buchler,  Der 
Galilaische   Am-ha-Ares,   205    and   n.    2. 

lr-  Most  of  the  Karaites  reject  also  the  talmudic  interpretation  of  IINBH 
in  Num.  27,  11  (Baba  batra  8,  1;  Sifre,  ad  loc;  Maim.,  fl^rU ,  I,  8  accepts 
the  view  (Ketubbot  84a)  that  SpSPI  nBTl'  is  only  O'lEID  *131»)  and  hold  that 
the  husband  does  not  inherit  his  wife;  see  Mibhar,  Num.,  37a;  p$?  p, 
lyod    ff. :     min     "ins.    Num.    42a;     pnBM,    28;    ni3Cr3    CinS,    50.       Mordecai 

b.  Nisan  cnia^o  anaf>.  /.   O   states:  mso  n»n  nniM  bh»i  mm  »a  now 
...  np»j?o  ainsn  iD^nn  om   intw  ns  bhv  byants*  pxini  nosy   »JB3 


KARAITE    IIAI.AK  All  -    kl'A'l.l.  -J-J 

defilement  of  a  priest  in  case  of  wife's  death;  see  Mibhar 
ad  luc.  (38a)  (comp.  f|D3  rrro,  ad  he:  3Tipn  nxrS  ds  "3 
xsx  riKB>  ps  lies*."  n'^zpn  ^bvib  TJiDi  in.'x  nrni?  pri'  x^>  :  vb$ 
ini"X3  xstrS  fnabwrim  inrx) ;  so  also  mimm,  ad  loc.  (58a) : 
"inrxn  mxcD^  -iidx:"  not*  x-ip»  •'Syai ;  comp.  also  Hadassi, 
Alph.  206  ^  and  irr\x  rmx,  171a;  Philo  (II,  230)  speaking 
of  the  law  of  Lev.  21,  2-3  mentions  the  six  blood-relations, 
enumerated  in  these  verses,  as  those  for  whom  the  priest 
is  to  defile  himself,  evidently  excluding  like  the  Karaites 
the  wife. 

15.  Philo  and  the  Karaites  also  agree  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  Lev.  21,  14.  Philo  (II,  229)  interprets  this 
law  to  mean  that  the  high-priest  must  choose  his  wife 
from  priestly  lineage.113    That  this  is  also  the  interpretation 

(?J  nt  feWB^i  O^'UDO  UVU.  D'JTinsn  DrPBSn  l^ENl;  Benjamin  Nahawendi 
agrees  with  Tradition  (]3);S  Sn"D  ,  ed.  Harkavy,  179).  Hadassi  (Alph.  365" 
(140a);  36-n  (142c)  holds  that  the  husband  inherits  his  wife  if  they  have 
children;      Samuel      al-Magrabi      (MS.,      269)      states:    lE^na     D'QDnn   »D   JHni 

rutyn  >:a  d.-ii  mini  interna  nnn  x>n  ns  ne»t6  nnthT  dc*  »»  :  paya 
pa  isn  xS  ^"t  weano  D»ain  am  anai  S"t  i3»Dano  nspi;  comp.  Weiss,  Dor, 

I,    46,    note. 

113  See  Ritter,  73,  n.  2  and  Hoffmann,  Magazin,  VIII  (1881),  56.  It 
is,  however,  possible  that  Philo  recorded  here  a  custom  which  he  believed 
to  be  a  law.  Biichler  {Die  Priester  v.  d.  Cultiis,  88-9;  comp.  also  Berakot 
44a;  Pesahim  49a;  Rashi,  Yebamot  84k,  s.  v.  'NO )  has  collected  instances 
which  tend  to  show  that  also  ordinary  priests  married  only  daughters  of 
priests  (comp.  also  Gratz,  MGWJ.,  1879,  499  and  Krauss,  JQR.,  VIII,  671). 
The  custom  to  marry  within  the  family  was  considered  praiseworthy  even 
for  non-priests  and  is  commended  by  the  Rabbis;  see  Tosefta  Riddushin 
1,  2;  Yebamot  626;  p.  Ividdushin  4,  4;  Gen.  rabba  18,  5;  see  also  Book  of  Jubi- 
lees 4,  15-33;  8,  5-6,  9,  7;  but  see  Kohler,  JQR.,  V  (1893),  406,  note);  comp. 
also  Tobit,  6,  12-3  and  MGWJ.,  1879,  507,  51°  ff.  For  the  view  of  Josephus  see 
M.  Zipser,  Des  Flavins  Josephus  Werk:  Gegen  Apion,  Wien  1871,  30;  Ritter, 
73   and   P.    Griinbaum,   Die   Priestergesetze   bei  Flavins  Josephus,   29-30. 

To  the  Karaite  authorities  mentioned  by  Geiger  (/.  c. )  that  the  high- 
priest  is  to  marry  the  daughter  of  a  priest  maj  lit-  added  Jacob  B.  Reuben,  "IBd 
Tit'yn,  on  Kz.  44-  22  and  Samuel  al-Magrabi  (ed.  Cohn,  1 -\  1.  -'4  it.;  Colin,  ib., 
note   111    remarks:  "Diese  Ansicht  ist  nur  karaisch  vielleicht  nur  des  Authors"!). 


KARAITE   IIALAKAH REVEL 


of  most  Karaites  was  already  observed  by  Azariah  de  Rossi 
(Q*yy  iiko,  ed.  Wien,  68a)  (comp.  Geiger,  ZDMG.,  XX 
(1866),  561  ff. ;  Nachgelasscne  Schriften  III,  311-14  V, 
Heb.,  133  ff. ;  Jiid  Zeitschr.,  VI,  265). 


CEREMONIAL    LAWS 

16.  Philo,  speaking  of  the  First  of  the  seventh  month 
(II,  295),  says  that  it  is  called  Day  of  Trumpets,  as  trum- 
pets are  blown  that  day  at  the  offering  of  the  sacrifices. 
Their  sounding  is  a  commemoration  of  the  giving  of  the 
Law.  The  trumpet  being  an  instrument  of  war,  symbolizes 
the  war  between  the  different  forces  of  nature  and  human- 
ity, for  the  pacification  of  which  man  must  be  greatful  to  God. 
Philo  makes  no  mention  of  the  traditional  interpretation  of 
nimn  Dr  (Num.  29,  1),  i.  e.  that  the  "Shofar"  (Sifra  on 
Lev.  25,  9;  see  Hoffmann,  Leviticus,  II,  247)  is  to  be 
sounded  everywhere  (except  on  sabbath;  R.  ha-shanah 
2gb)  in  Israel  on  that  day  and  seems  to  have  identified 
njrnn  dv  in  Num.  29,  1  with  mxxna  Dnypni,  the  blowing  of 
trumpets  every  holiday  at  the  offering  of  sacrifices  (Num. 
10,  10). ,14  The  Karaites  also  reject  the  traditional  inter- 
pretation of  nynn  and  explain  it  as  loud  praises  to  God 
(Hadassi,  Alph.  225;  364  (136a)  ;py  p,  58a  ff.jrrnmro 
Lev.  67a;  irrS«  mix,  48a;  jvnsK,  13;  nebo  wzb,  48-9)  or 

114  Nor  does  Josephus  (Ant.  Ill,  10,  2)  mention  the  law  of  nypn 
"lElty  ;  comp.  also  Book  of  Jubilees,  ch.  6.  The  Samaritans,  like  the  Karaites, 
reject  the  traditional  interpretation  of  nyiin  DV ,  differing  among  themselves 
as  to  its  meaning;  see  Geiger,  ZDMG.,  XX,  570;  Hanover,  Das  Fcslgescts 
der  Samaritaner  nach  Ibrahim  ibn  Jakub,  text,  pp.  X-XI  and  ib.,  28,  68. 
Some  Karaites  take  fiyvin  DV  to  mean  the  blowing  of  any  instrument  on 
that  day  (Mibhar,  Lev.,  42b;  py  ]i ,  I.  c).  Samuel  al-Magrabi  (MS.  41a} 
states  that  HyilM  is  the  sounding  of  hasosrot  by  priests  and,  in  absence  of 
authenticated    priests    and    hasosrot.    not    to    be    observed    now. 


KARAITE    HAI.AKAIl  —  KI-VKl.  79 

as  the  sounding  of   mxvn    on  every  holiday    (domp.    pJJ  p, 
$8d;  Hadassi,  136a). 

The  Karaites  also  reject  the  traditional  interpreta- 
tion of  jHPtnn  m-a  nib  DnnpSi  (Lev.  23,  40)  (see  Josephus, 
Ant.  Ill,  10,  4)  and  claim  that  the  ''four  species" 
are  for  the  construction  of  the  "booths"  mentioned 
in  verse  42,  deriving  support  for  this  view  from 
Nehem.  8,  14  ff.  See  py  p,  ~,6ab  (where  the  views  of 
Anan,  Benjamin  Nahawendi,  and  Daniel,  al  Kumsi  are 
quoted);  Hadassi,  Alph.  168  (64b);  225-6;  364  (136a); 
Mibhar,  Lev.  43a;  min  "ifD,  Lev.  67/?;  in^s  rms ,  47/' 
(where  the  opinion  of  Jepheth  b.  Ali  is  quoted)  ;  Pinsker 
II,  96;  JV-iSK,  14;  nobp  tmS,  34.  49."5  Philo.  speaking  of 
the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (II,  297),  makes  no  mention  of 
the  law  of  "four  species."  Philo,  as  Treitel  (MGWJ., 
1903,  512)  suggests,  must  have  understood  verse  40  not  as 
a  separate  commandment  but,"8  like  the  Karaites,  as  pre- 
scribing material   for  the  booths. 

17.  Tradition  (Zebahim  5,  8;  Maim.,  nrrm  'n ,  6, 4) 
interprets  Lev.  27,  32  to  mean  that  the  animal-tithe,  nonaTPD 

10  Some  Karaites  agree  with  Tradition  in  the  interpretation  of  DnnpSl 
D37;    see   pj?   p,    55b    and    the    opinion    of    Joseph    ha-Kohen    (/.    c,    s$d ;  "ina 

min,  Lev.  67b;  in^x  mix,  /.  c). 

The  Samaritans  agree  with  the  Karaites;  see  Geiger,  ZDMG.,  XX,  544; 
Hanover,  /.  c,  16  and  62  (Hanover,  31,  n.  2,  relying  on  the  words  of  Ibn 
Ezra  on  Lev.  23,  40:  rvsn:0  TVX~\  lX'SHl  H1D1D  lB>yfl  H^XO  »3  n»N  D'pHSm, 
believes  that  the  Sadducees  shared  this  view,  unaware  that  by  O'DllSffi 
Ibn  Ezra  refers,  as  usual,  to  the  Karaites  (see  above,  note  10);  see,  how- 
M.  Duschack,  Josephus  Flavins  u.  d.  Tradition,  27  and  Gratz,  III,  note  10). 
Josephus  agrees  with  Tradition  {Ant.,  Ill,  10,  5);  so  also  the  Falashas 
(Epstein,  Eldad  ha-Dani,  162).  See  also  Book  of  Jubilees  16,  4  and  B.  Beer, 
Buck    d.    Jnbilaen,    47. 

""  It  must,  however,  be  pointed  out  that  Philo  (/.  c),  in  contradistinc- 
tion to  Josephus  (comp.  M.  Olitzki,  Flavins  Josephus  und  die  Halacha,  p. 
25,  n.  31  and  p.  50),  does  not  seem  to  require  the  construction  of  special 
booths    for    the    Feast   of    Tabernacles. 


80  KARAITE   HALAKAH — REVEL 

like  the  "second  tithe,"  is  to  be  eaten  by  the  owner  within 
the  walls  of  Jerusalem.  Philo  (II,  234,  391 ;  comp.  Ritter, 
123;  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  170,  note  is  to  be  corrected 
accordingly)  states  that  the  animal-tithe  is  to  be  given 
to  the  priests.1"  The  Karaites  agree  with  Philo.  See  Mib- 
har,  Lev.  51a;  rnin  "VD,  Lev.  j6b. 

18.  Tradition  applies  the  law  of  Lev.  22,  19  (D'on)  to 
animal  sacrifices  only  (Sifra  to  Lev.  1,  14;  Menahot  6a  and 
parallels).  Philo,  as  is  evident  from  the  reason  given  by  him 
for  the  law  of  D^nn  (II,  238)  holds  that  D^n  refers  also  to 
n:v  "031  nmn .  The  Karaites  agree  with  Philo.  See  Mib- 
har,  Lev.  3b,  fiaani  ....  W3  pbma  pDion  p«  n^pn  ^yn  no«l 
1T»  IT  nnoS  nvBnan  i^x:r;    see   also    min   "iro,  Lev.,  5a. 

19.  Philo  (II,  256;  comp.  Werke  Philos,  II,  93,  n.  1) 
states  that  all  the  lights  of  the  sacred  candle-stick  (iTttJD) 
were  extinguished  in  the  morning.  According  to  Tradition 
(Tamid  6,  1;  Sifre  on  Num.  8,  2;  Tosefta,  Sotah  13,  7; 
Yoma,  39a118  and  parallels;  comp.  also  Nahm.  on  Ex.  27, 
20  and  To^afot  Menahot  86/?  ^.  v.  nJDl;  comp.  M.  Duschak. 
Joscphus  Flavins  u.  d.  Tradition,  Wien  1864,  p.  4,  which 
is  to  be  corrected  accordingly)  one  light  was  left  burning 
the  whole  day  (^nyon  13 ).  Josephus  (C.  Ap.,  I,  22)  also 
states  that  the  lights  were  never  extinguished  (see  Ant.. 
III.    8,    3    that    three    lights    burned  in  the  Temple  during 

1,7  So  also  Book  of  Jubilees  32,  15  and  Tobit  1.  6.  Ritter,  123  over- 
looked that  Philo  (II,  234)  disagrees  with  Tradition  (Bekorot  9.  O  also 
in  requiring  non2  "1B>J?0  to  be  given  from  all  domestic  animals.  See  also 
Schechter,  Jewish  Sectaries,  II,  4,  11.  13-15;  comp.,  however,  Hadassi,  Alph. 
80S- 

118  See   Tosefta    Sotah  13,    7;    Yoma    39a;   P-    »'&•,    6.    3:    WZW  HiC  B»P318 

phn  B'oys  t>w  ]sd»   [rMn  ^3]    p;n  ♦aiyo  ia  rvm  ....  pnsn  pyotr 

MB  B»OJ?B;  but  see  Weiss,  Dor,  I,  82,  note  i,  that  this  refers  to    pHSPl  pj^DW 

who  lived  about  forty  C.   E. :   see  Maim.,  E'BDISI  H'SH.  3.   '2  and    2"  =  arf  foe.  : 
comp.    K*3Bnn    'n.    ed.    Wien,    No.    309. 


KARAITE    HALAKAH  —  KK.VKL  Ol 

daytime!)  The  Karaites  hold,  like  Philo,  that  no  lights 
burnecl  in  the  Temple  during  the  day.  See  Mibhar,  Exod. 
57a  and  mimm,  Lev.  856. 

20.  The  Karaites  reject  the  ancient  traditional  law"" 
that  vows  made  and  oaths  taken  without  due  consideration 
of  the  circumstances  involved  may  be  annulled  by  a  court 
as  those  of  a  daughter  by  her  father  (Num.  30,  5-6)  an  1 
that  of  a  wife  by  her  husband  (/.  c,  v.  7  ff.).  See  Hadassi, 
Alph.  139-141,  364  (135a);  Mibhar,  Num.  29a;  T\xhll  W&, 
51 ;  comp.  also  Maim,  commentary  on  Nedarim,  ch.  10,  end; 
"sh  ar  San  D^yia  nwawi  irrn  b"~\  myon  nya  lrtaM  nw  •■• 
mron  b*i  dtvpi  a-o  jna  pyaM  pswDipoac;  and  id.,  min  ruBtf, 
mpup  ,L,n,  12.  12.  This  seems  to  be  also  the  view  of 
Philo  who  seems  to  express  his  objection  to  the  law  of 
annulment  of  vows  by  the  statement  (II,  273;  comp.  Werke 
Pliilos,  II,  112,  n.  2)  that  "no  man    is    competent    to    heal 


1,9  Weiss  {Dor,  I,  81)  believes  that  the  law  of  D'"H2  mm  was  inaug- 
urated in  the  time  of  Simon  the  Just.  This  opinion  of  Weiss  is  based  on 
his  view  (/.  c,  80;  so  also  Geiger,  Urschrift,  31-2)  that  p'TiTI  n"!3C»  did  not 
favor  the  making  of  vows;  see,  however,  Rapoport,  mi!"!'  n.nj,  23  ff.  We 
do  not  know  whether  the  law  of  D'llJ  mfin  was  even  contested  by  the 
Sadducees;  comp.  p.  Berakot  7,  2;  Gen.  rabba  91,  3.  Schechter  (Jewish 
Sectaries,  I,  XVIII;  comp.  ib.,  p.  16,  11.  7-8  and  notes)  believes  that  the 
sect  which  he  designates  "Zadokite"  (see  above)  held  that  vows  cannot 
be  annulled;  comp.  also  K.  Kohler,  American  Journal  of  Theology,  191 1.  425-°- 

,2°  The  later  Karaites  accepted,  with  slight  modifications,  the  law  of 
Dm:  mm  ;  see  Kaleb  Afendopolo's  appendix  to  1!"P7K  nvtX,  Odessa  1870. 
227a  ff.  It  is,  however,  possible  that  in  rejecting  Dm:  mm  the  early 
Karaites,  as  in  several  other  instances,  turned  into  a  law  the  general 
sentiment  among  the  Babylonian  Jews  during  the  Gaonic  period  against  the 
annulment  of   vows.     Jehudai   Gaon    (quoted   by   Nahshon   Gaon)    states:     \Ztt1 

nynw  xhi  rra  *h  rra  -vwrfa  idxS  \xyv   vh\   om:  p<D-u  vh;  see  nshft 

mpiDS,     ed.      Midler,     No.     122;     comp.     ib.,     Nos.     117,     120;       TMMZ     ff\OTi, 

Nos.  6,  44,  75;   roitrn  nj?tr,  Nos.  38,  137,  143.  145-6;   o'aitrjn  bv  'mm, 


82  KARAITE    IIALAKAH KKVK1. 

21.  The  Karaites  agree  with  Philo  also  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  io«  ibm  hj  bean  x^  (Exod.  23,  19;  34,  26; 
Deut.  14,  21)  as  prohibiting  the  seething  of  a  kid  or — by 
analogy — of  any  other  animal  in  the  milk  of  its  mother. 
See  Philo  II,  399;  comp.  Ritter,  128."1  See  Hadassi,  Alph. 
240  (cjicd);  3^0^  (132(f);  Mibhar,  Exod.  4.7b;  min  nrD, 
Exod.  ygab.1'2  nftbn  ennb,  41. 

22.  The  law  of  Ex.  13,  13;  Num.  18,  15  enjoins  the 
redemption  of  the  firstling  of  an  ass  with  a  lamb,  and  that, 
if  the  owner  fails  to  redeem,  the  firstling  is  to  be  kille  1  by 
having  its  neck  broken.  According  to  Tradition  this  law 
refers  only  to  an  ass  but  not  to  the  firstling  of  any  other 
unclean  animal  (Mekilta,  ad  loc-;  Sifre  on  Num.  18,  15; 
Bekorot  5b).     Philo  makes  this  law  apply  to  all  domestic 

ed.    Horowitz.    I,    Nos.    12,    14:    so    also    Sar    Shalom    Gaon :       "'XC     U'JO      "3 

mync  3V"si   am:   "pnnS  h:ptr  »o  l^Sn  nnn:,  frcitrn   >*\yv  No.   mt. 

D'JIKJH  niiltWl ,  ed.  Lyck,  No.  37:  see  however,  ib.,  No.  11  end;    PDlCTt  '1}?B>, 
No.   48   and    D'H   "X  ,   ad  loc). 

121  See  Hullin  8,  1  ff. ;  Mekilta  on  Exod.  23,  19;  Sifre  on  Deut.  14,  21. 
The  Samaritans  agree  with  Tradition;  see  Geiger,  .Xachg.  Schr.,  Ill,  303-4; 
Wreschner,  Intr.;  XXVI.  For  the  view  of  the  ancient  Samaritans  see 
Geiger,  /.  c,  305-6  and  Nachg.  Schr.,  IV,  66,  126.  For  the  LXX  see  Frankel, 
Vorstudien,  183.  The  practice  of  the  Falashas  agrees  with  the  view  of 
Philo  and  the  Karaites  (Epstein,  Eldad  ha-Dani,  130,  173;  Epstein,  /.  c, 
120-131  believes  that  this  was  also  the  view  of  Eldad  ha-Dani;  but  see  No. 
35  of  Eldad's  Halakah,  ed.  Epstein.  12O.  Against  the  view  of  Rapopoit 
],£?D  "pJ7,  ioifl  'comp.  Ritter.  128I  that  the  law  of  dSp2  "ltt>2  was  not  uni- 
versally known  in  Babylonia  even  long  after  the  destruction  of  the  Second 
Temple    see    Halevy,    OiJHMnfl  mil"!,    Ic,    128. 

122  For  Anan's  interpretation  of  1CN  3^13  HJ  ^tTin  iih  see  Harkavy, 
]i$h  On"D,  15-',  n.  1.  For  other  interpretations  of  this  verse  by  some  early 
Karaites  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  240  (oicrf);  Jacob  b.  Reuben  (Harkavy,  /.  c, 
155)  and  Ibn  Ezra  on  Exod.  23,  19.  Most  of  the  later  Karaites  accept  the 
traditional  interpretation  of  Scan  vh  ;  see  Geiger,  Nachg.  Schr.,  Ill,  303; 
comp.  also  min  IJIS,  Exod.  79a;  Samuel  al-Magrabi,  ed.  Lorge,  20-22; 
IV1BM,    24. 


KARAITE    HALAKAH  —  REVEL  S3 

animals  (II,  233;  Ritter,  119  ff.).,a  This  is  also  the  view 
of  the  Karaites.  See  Anan  (ed.  Schechter,  p.  7,  11.  8-15)  : 
-non  [-11:21  3Ton  dil"]o  «n  na  'BB  (Num.  15,  18b)  nxvun 
d^st  ««ni  Op  non]a  ba  bjn  "vnvb  »n  josh  '20  ne>a  man 
-pom  tup  'nan  [-non  S^aa]  nwaa  nana  ban  di*jmb  iiona  ann 
ncni  non  jinbb  [nonaoi  -ne>  n]-nnB  nanao  non  "incna  bai 
rranabi  m"  [nna  mine  n]onab  [?  nbba]  nbpa  inona  bai  nnna 
Dm  -11:2  bi  bin  ijn«b  [in»n]abai  'na*an  DwwwDnnna  piiwdb 
D'Kp  nKBB  norm;  comp.  ib.,  p.  8,  1.  15  ff.  So  also  Hadassi, 
Alph.  204;  mm  ma,  Exod.  350:  &6k>  iinij  »a  :  ion  nasi 
nbapn  ^ya  run  }ai  nab  men  nas  dn  'a  niSDtan  monaD  wipn 
nKBB  nona  bab  L"pn  nt  DnoiN  snpa  'jai. 

123  So  also  Josephus,  Ant.,  IV,  4,  4.  As  Olitzki  suggests  (Flavins 
losephus  und  die  Halacha,  29)  this  anti-traditional  view  of  Josephus  may 
be  due  to  his  desire  to  remove  any  suspicion  that  the  ass  occupied  a 
favorable  position  in  Jewish  law.  This  may  also  account  for  the  view 
of  Philo.  Philo  omits  the  law  of  tflfnyi  (Exod.  13,  13;  comp.  Ritter, 
120;  Olitzki,  Magazin,  XVI,  178.).  Nor  do  all  the  Karaites  accept  the  literal 
interpretation  of  lnBIJN ;  see  the  opinion  of  Sahl  b.  Masliah  quoted  in 
Mibhar,  Exod.  196  (comp.  Ibn  Ezra,  ad  loc).  Aaron  b.  Joseph  (Mibhar, 
/.  c.  and  Num.  176)  agrees  with  Tradition  that  only  the  ass  is  to  be 
redeemed.      Comp.    also    Weiss,    Dor,    I,    51. 

The  contradiction  between  Exod.  13,  2  (  D1X2  '■NIC  '222  Dm  S2  ICE 
Nin  »b  HOPiaaV)  and  Deut.  15.  19-20  (i:l2*n  ynhi<  'n  »3fiS)  and  between 
Lev.  27,  26  (mix  C»X  B»ip»  «S . . . ;  the  firstling  is  limp  ipso  facto)  and 
Deut.,  /.  c.  (trnpn  12TH  ...;  the  1122  is  to  be  declared  Clip  by  the  owner) 
led  many  Karaites  to  refer  Deut.  15,  19-20  to  11J,'  "1122  of  clean  animals 
which,  as  they  believe,  in  contradistinction  to  cm  ICE  "1122  is  to  be  declared 
Clip  by  the  own^r  and,  like  the  "second  tithe,"  to  be  consumed  by  him 
within  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  or  redeemed;  see  Hadassi,  Alph.  204-5; 
Mibhar,  Deut..  12b;  niW  "1*12,  Deut.  19a  (Ibn  Ezra  on  Deut.  12,  17  refers 
to  this  Karaite  view;  Harkavy,  \}yh  Bn"D  ,  142,  n.  16,  is  to  be  corrected 
accordingly).  Anan  tried  to  reconcile  the  above  mentioned  contradictions 
by  claiming  that  the  firstling  whose  conception  and  birth  were  while  its  mother 
belonged  to  an  Israelite  is  Clip  ipso  facto  and  to  be  given  to  the  priests 
(Exod.  13,  2;  Lev.  27,  26,  Num.  18,  15),  whereas  the  1122  who  was  owned 
by    an    Israelite    only    at    the    time    of    its    birth    is    to    be    made    Clip   by    the 


84  KARAITE    1 1  M.A  !<  \  II — RKYKI. 

The  Philonian  halakah,  in  general,  is  a  problem  still  to 
be  solved.  Philo  lived  in  Egypt  where  as  we  now  know 
from  the  papyri  recently  discovered  in  Assuan  and  Elephan- 
tine (Sayce-Cowley,  Aramaic  Papyri  discovered  in  Assuan. 
London  1906;  Sachau.  Drei  aramaische  Papyrusurkunden 
aus  Elephantine,  1908),  the  Jews  were  permanently  set- 
tled in  the  sixth  century  B.  C.  (comp.  Schvirer.  Gcschichte 
des  Judischen   Volkes,  III  4,  24  ff.).124 

Alexander  the  Great  transplanted  many  Jews  into 
Egypt  in  332  B.  C.   (Josephus,  Bell.  Jud.  II,  18,  7;  Contra 

owner  and  belongs  to  him  (Dent.  15,  19-20).  See  Anan's  Book  of  Com- 
mandments   (ed.    Schechter,    p.    6,    11.    7-18):     3.3  by    t\M    X1H    »S    Ktt[«]    Npl 

'«S  'n  'tn  [-pxxai  "ppaa  tVp  it?x]  ii32n  Ss  anai  n['tv]  enpa  xSi 
u«Si  D»xp  'b»  '3»3  nf[']n[sn]  1122  Sjrn  ivix1?  "rJi1  "WN  **»"  x~  1'nSs 
kos  ttpi  rvcmpxS  nsnxi  ^nSs  ['nS  enpn]  xrcx  xpi  »j?mtx  jnnTOi 
»a»3  tStxi  xin  hi^mni  1132  "xm  (?)  -^  [yvMh~]  -prhx  'n  ^e1?  nnna 
-ins  -jx  'n2i  ...  tinpon  rvaa  m^sio  n»n«no  'c  »a»a  jn[-»tti]  ix^i  '»' 
jniTK  13  pi  inn  Sjh  "iinxS  'ansa  'S  122'  itrs  xs[x  xp  122']  iw« 
»['«  »np'  xSjxrox  xpi  'c"  »a»3  »j?mw  jmroi  1122  ia»m  D'xp  xn[trnp2] 
nonaai  mxa  xrax  x[pi]  it?3  W  am  -ice  Sa  '31  rv»npN  "p*  vhi  wx 
rvS  jrarr  paS    'B"    ['j'3    >j?mTx]    jmto  122-1  -;S  xrsx    xp   i,1?   n»n>; 

comp.  also  ib.,  p.  8,  11.  15-26  and  p.  9,  11.  9-10,  21  ff.  Kirkisani  alludes  to 
this  view  of  Anan  (ed.  Harkavy,  248)  and  states  that  the  authority  for 
this  law  of  Anan  was  found  in  one  of  Jannai's  liturgical  compositions. 
Harkavy,  Stndicn  n.  Mittheilungen,  V,  107,  note,  is  to  be  corrected 
accordingly. 

124  See  also  Rapoport,  iT71i*P  rhm,  128-9;  id.,  J'So  "111*,  i°°b  ff.;  Ritter, 
6,  8-9.  Herzfeld,  Gcschichte,  III,  463;  Frankel,  Vorstudien,  10,  and  notes; 
id.,    MGWJ.,    1852,    40. 

On  the  Egyptian  Jews  and  their  relation  to  Palestine  see  the  literature 
quoted  by  Schiirer,  /.  c,  147  ff.,  and  in  Sweet's  Introduction  to  the  Old 
Testament  in  Greek,  Cambridge  1902,  3  ff.  In  the  third  and  fourth  centuries 
C.  E.  there  were  still  some  Amoraim  in  Alexandria;  see  p.  Erubin  3,  9; 
p.  Kiddushin  3,  14;  comp.  Frankel,  'oSc'TlM  X120  ,  77a.  It  may  also 
be  pointed  out  that  Judah  b.  Tabbai,  to  whom  the  later  Karaites  (see 
above,  note  4)  ascribe  the  beginning  of  Karaism,  lived  in  Alexandria;  see 
p.  Hagigah  2,  2;  p.  Sanhedrin  6,  6;  comp.  Frankel,  rOE'EH  '311,  34-5; 
Weiss,    Dor,    128,    n.    1;    Halevy,     D'ilCXin   mill,    1c.   474    ff- 


KARAITE    I1A1.AKAH  —  REVEL  'S5 

Ap.,  II.  4;  comp.  Sehiirer,  /.  c,  y  ff. ;  40).  The  citj 
Alexandria  early  became  a  great  center  of  Jewish  activity, 
second  only  to  Jerusalem.  The  existence  of  the  Temple 
of  Onias  did  not  affect  the  loyalty  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt  to 
the  Sanctuary  in  Jerusalem  (Frankel,  Einfluss,  157; 
Sehiirer,  /.  c,  147-8).  Palestinian  scholars  often  visited 
Alexandria  (Rapoport,  pbo  TW,  101/n.  The  Palestinian 
interpretation  of  the  Law  and  the  practices  in  vogue  there 
were  not  unknown  to  them  (Frankel.  Vorstudien  zu  der 
Septuaginta,  185-186;  comp.  Halevv.  D^wsnn  nnn,  If. 
127.  note;  129.  note)  and  the  influence  of  Palestinian  ex- 
egesis is  patent  in  that  great  monument  of  the  Jews  of 
Egypt,  the  Septuagint  (Frankel.  Vorstudien  su  der 
Septuaginta;  Ueber  den  Einfluss  d.  paldst.  Uxegese  auf  d. 
alcx.  Hermeneutik;  Ueber  paldst.  und  ales.  Schriftfor- 
schung;  but  see  Herzfeld,  Gescliichte.  Ill,  548  ff.).  Philo, 
the  great  representative  of  Egyptian  Jewry,  knew  of  the 
existence  of  an  oral  tradition  and  considered  it  as  binding 
as  the  Written  Law  (see  the  references  by  Ritter,  14-5; 
comp.  Neumark,  Gescliichte  d.  Jiidischcn  Philosophic  des 
Mittelaltcrs,  II,  Berlin  1910,  418,  note;  see,  however,  Werke 
Philos.  II.  289,  note).124  He  also  visited  Palestine  and  there 
saw  the  people  living  according  to  that  Tradition  (Gratz, 
MGWJ.,  1877,  436  ff.).  How  are  we  then  to  account  for 
the  interpretations  and  decisions  in  which  Philo  deviates 
from  traditional  halakah?  Are  such  deviations  subjective 
opinions  of  Philo?126     Do  they  reflect  the  actual  practices 

125  See  also  Ritter,  16-7.  For  Philo's  cruditio  hebraica  see  the  refer- 
ences by  Ritter,  10,  n.  2  and  by  Sehiirer,  /.  c,  699;  comp.  also  L.  Low,  Ges. 
Schr.,    I,    7,    3°3- 

128  See  Treitel,  MGWJ.,    1903,  415;  but  see   Ritter,   15-16. 


86  KARAITE  HALAKAH — REVEL 

in  vogue  among  Egyptian  Jewry1"  or  do  they  go  back  to  a 
peculiar  tradition?128 

But  be  this  as  it  may,  the  fact,  which  I  have  attempted 
to  demonstrate,  that  in  most  of  Philo's  deviations  from 
Tradition  the  Karaites  hold  the  same  viezv,  points  to  some 
kind  of  dependence  of  the  latter  on  Philo,  or  to  common 
descent  from  a  particular  tradition.  The  former  view  gains 
in  probability  from  the  following: 

The  Hellenic  or  Alexandrian  method  of  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures  did  not  remain  unknown  to  the  Palestin- 
ian teachers  of  the  law  and  the  works  and  views  of  Philo 
found  their  way  to  the  Palestinian  schools.129  Moreover, 
the  general  belief  that  Philo  and  his  works  were  lost  to 
the  Jews  of  the  Middle  Ages  until  Azariah  dei  Rossi,  about 

1=7  So  Rittcr  16-17:  comp.  ib.,  28,  63  ff.,  90,  931  but  see  Werhe  Philos, 
II,  48,  n.  2;  202,  n.  3;  258,  n.  1.  Frankel  (t)ber  paldstinische  u.  alcxandri- 
nische  Schriftforschung,  32,  nu.  6;  EinYtiss,  157  see  ib.,  33,  n.  9  and  pp. 
190-201)  believes  that  Philo's  exposition  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  goes  back 
to  the  practice  of  the  Temple  of  Onias;  comp.  also  Gratz,  MGWJ.,  1877, 
436;    but    see    Ritter,    109,    n.    2;    112. 

128  See  L.  Cohn,  Werke  Philos  I,  14-  The  view  of  Biichler  {MGWJ., 
L  (1906),  706;  see  also  Lauterbach,  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  X,  s.  v.  Philo, 
i6£>)  that  Philo's  deviations  from  traditional  halakah  represent  an  earlier 
halakah  (that  of  Beth  Shammai)  is  still  to  be  proved.  Geiger  who  scanned 
Jewish  literature  and  that  of  its  sects  for  traces  of  ancient  halakah  took  no 
account,  as  already  remarked  by  Poznanski  (Abraham  Geiger,  Leben  u. 
Lebenswerk,  372,  n.  1),  of  Philo.  Philo's  deviations  from  Tradition  cannot 
be  brought  into  relation  with  Sadduceeism  and  the  supposed  ancient  halakah 
related  to  it;  comp.  Rapoport,  |'S»  T1J,\  101a.  Philo  interprets  rOEVt  mnOO 
like  the  Pharisees  (Frankel,  Einfluss,  137)-  He  considers  (II,  230)  like 
the  Pharisess  (Menahot  65a)  the  Ton  pip  a  public  offering;  allows  divorce 
without  "ian  filly  (Ritter,  70,  n.  1)  and  seems  to  agree  with  the  Pharisees 
also  in   the  law   of     D'OOIT   DHJ?     (Ritter,   26,   n.    1). 

1=»  See  Freudenthal,  Hellenistische  Studien,  I,  68  ff.;  C.  Siegfried, 
Philo  von  Alexandria  als  Ausleger  dcs  Alien  Testament,  Jena  1875,  278  ff . ; 
Weinstein,  Zur  Genesis  der  Agada,  II,  29  ff . ;  D.  Neumark,  Gescluchte 
der  Jiidischen    Philosophic   des   Mittelalters,    II,    70   ff.,   84    ff. 


KARAITE    HALAKAIt  —  RKvn.  Sj 

the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  reintroduced  him  in  Jewish 
literature,  is  now  proved  to  be  unfounded.  The  tenth 
century  Karaite,  Abu  Yusuf  al-Kirkisani,  in  his  work  Kitab 
al-anwar  wal-marakib  (written  937),  speaks  of  a  Jewish 
Sect  named  "the  Magarites"  (Hnwobw).  This  sect,  says 
Kirkisani,  sprang  up  before  the  rise  of  Christianity.  The  ad- 
herents of  the  sect  make  the  biblical  passages  that  speak 
of  attributes  of  God  refer  to  an  angel  who,  according  to 
them,  created  the  world  (ed.  Harkavy,  304).  Among  them 
are  the  works  of  the  "Alexandrine"  ("OKYlJaDsbK )  which 
are  the  best  of  the  "Books  of  the  Cave"  {ib.,  283).  The 
same  author,  speaking  of  Benjamin  Nahawendi  whom  he 
considers  the  second  founder  of  Karaism,  says  that  Ben- 
jamin's belief  that  an  angel  created  the  world  is  similar  to 
the  view  held  by  the  Alexandrine  (ib.,  314).  Harkavy 
ingeniously  suggested  that  these  "Magarites"  are  the 
Egyptian  Essenes,  known  as  the  Therapeutae.  The  "Alex- 
andrine" whose  works  they  so  highly  estimated  is  no  other 
than  Philo  (ib.,  256  ff.)  and  Nahawendi's  "Angel"  goes 
back  to  Philo's  "Logos"  (comp.  Poznahski,  RBJ..  L,  1905, 
"Philon  dans  l'ancienne  litterature  judeo-arabe,"  where  all 
the  material  is  collected  and  discussed).  The  view  that 
some  of  the  works  of  Philo  were  known  to  the  Jews  in  the 
eighth,  ninth,  and  tenth  centuries — the  period  of  religious 
unrest  among  the  Jews  and  the  birth  of  Jewish  religious 
philosophy — is  shared  by  many  scholars.  See  Bacher, 
JOR.,  VII,  701;  Hirschfeld,  ib.,  XVII  (1905),  65  ff . ; 
Poznanski,  /.  c.  (see  id.,  htiTW  TON,  III,  128a)  ;  Eppen- 
stein,  MGWJ.,  LIV  (1910),  200;  D.  Neumark,  Geschichte 
der  jiidischen  Philosophic  des  Mittelalters,  I,  Berlin  1907, 
128,  133,  560,  568;  II,  372  and  466  ff.  Among  Philo's 
(the  "Alexandrine's)    works — which,  as  Kirkisani  informs 


88  KARAITE    HAI.AKAII REVEL 

us,  were  eagerly  studied, — might  have  been  those  that  con- 
tain Philo's  expositions  of  biblical  laws ;  Philo  thus  influ- 
encing, not  only  the  theological  views  of  the  first  Karaite 
philosophers  (Benjamin  Nahawendi  and  his  followers), 
but  also  their  interpretation  of  biblical  laws  and  their 
practices.130 

,30  The  allegorical  method  of  interpretation,  characteristic  of  Philo,  was 
popular  also  among  the  Karaites;  see  Weiss,  Dor,  IV,  86  and  Poznanski, 
MGWJ.,  1897,  208,  n.  1;  comp.  also  H.  Hirschfeld,  Jefeth  b.  Ali's  Arabic 
Commentary  to  Nahum,  London  1911,  8  and  10  ff.  The  Karaites  share  also 
the  view  of  Philo  that  the  Decalogue  is  the  text  on  which  the  whole  Law 
is  but  a  commentary  (this  view  is  found  also  in  the  later  Midrashim;  see 
the  references  by  L.  Low,  Ges.  Schr.,  I,  42.  A  similar  view  is  found  in 
p.  Shekalim  6,  1.  Reifmann,  "llE^n  H'3 ,  I,  350  and  Weiss,  Dor,  IV,  141 
are  to  be  corrected  accordingly).  Saadia  Gaon  proved  to  them  by  it  the 
possibility  of  an  oral  law  (comp.  Weiss,  Dor,  IV,  141)  and  the  Karaites 
Nissi  b.  Noah  (eleventh  century;  see  lastly  Harkavy,  |3J,'7  i2!"l"D ,  intr.,  VII) 
and  Judah  Hadassi  (twelfth  century)  arranged  their  works,  like  Philo, 
according  to  this  view.  Comp.  also  Muller  in  OeiAvres  completes,  XI,  intr., 
XIX;    Bacher,   Jewish    Encyclopedia,    X,    5836. 

The  Karaite  Zerah  b.  Nathan  (end  of  sixteenth  century)  was  much 
interested  in  the  v/orks  of  Philo  (Neubauer,  Aus  der  Peter sburger  Bibliothek, 
75,  125).  The  famous  nineteenth  century  Karaite  Abraham  Firkowitsch  in- 
deed asserts  that  Philo  was  a  Karaite  (preface  to  DHC  "IPI30 ,  2a),  but, 
according  to  him,  Jesus  was  a  Karaite  likewise  (  JT33ri  DJlin  ,  appendix  to 
nnc  "imo,  540,  560;  Kirkisani,  ed.  Harkavy,  305,  9  and  Hadassi,  JQR., 
VIII  (1896),  436  state  that  Jesus  was  a  Sadducee) ;  comp.  I.  B.  Levinsohn, 
1B1DH  "ipn,   Odessa    1863,    18-9. 


T|invEftsirr 


OTWIA    TTBRARY 


1. 


RETURN 
TO—* 

MAIN  CIRCULATION 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL 
RENEW  BOOKS  BY  CALLING  642-3405 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

H  07  '94 

T  LIBRARY  USE  C 

NLY 

ocr  *  / 1? 

H 

CIRCULATION  D 

EPT. 

AUTODISCORC 

uciasw 

--,- 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


LD2lA-&CHK-3,'6'-:' 
(G7097s\0)476B 


**'"      General  Library     . 
UoiversityofCaliforma 

Berkeley 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CDD5E72ba7 


fc  >  Ufa 


264304 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


,v 


